HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/2007
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, November 27, 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 and November 13, 2007
5. Unfinished Business:
a. Sign Code Amendments:
1) Dynamic Display Signs
2) March 1, 2006, Draft Sign Code
6. Design Review: None Scheduled
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Representation at the December 4, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. Item
to be Discussed Includes Dynamic Display Sign Code Amendment
b. Representation at the December 10 or 17 City Council Meeting. Item to be
Discussed Includes Dynamic Display Sign Code Amendment
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.
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Demko moved to approve the agenda as amended, removing approval of the
October 23, 2007 minutes due to lack of a quorum for that approval.
Board member Wise seconded.
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Maplewood Business Center (1616 and 1730 Gervais Avenue) - Comprehensive Sign
Plan Amendment
Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report regarding the request for amendment to the
comprehensive sign plan.
Todd Balsiger of Steiner Development, the broker for these two properties, presented samples of
the sign proposal to the board. Mr. Balsiger said the wall signs for Building Two will be to the left or
right of the entry door and if a tenant should have two bays there will be just one sign located over
the main entry. Mr. Balsiger showed the board color samples and said the signage colors for
Building Two will be an anodized brown and cream with the lettering color matching the existing
lettering. Mr. Balsiger said the applicant has been working to develop building standards for
signage for these two buildings and this request is the last step of that process.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-13-2007
2
Steve Holbert of Steiner Development said that no funds were budgeted for bricking the lower
section of Business Center One signage if the Auto Glass Specialist sign is removed, so it will
remain without brick as it is now. Mr. Holbert explained that the brick on the free-standing sign on
Building Two matches the brick on that building, but Building One does not have a brick fascia.
Mr. Holbert explained that the business centers are addressed differently and would make it much
more difficult to list suite number addresses on the free-standing sign for Business Center One.
The board discussed with the applicant the existing addressing on the buildings.
Board member Olson said she is not opposed to this request by ReUse Center to have its own
identity since it is a retail use and open to the public.
Board member Wise questioned whether the board needs to limit this to cabinet style signage or
whether the tenant should have the choice of signage type.
Mr. Balsiger said that it is the applicant's intent to have building signage that not only meets with
city compliance, but allow for a variation of signage on the building for the ReUse tenant only. Mr.
Balsiger said that it would be helpful to have that flexibility in the future on a case-by-case basis,
but that at this time they want tenants to use the building standards signage.
Board member Wise moved the community design review board recommend approval of the
comprehensive sign plan amendment for Maplewood Business Center Nos. 1 and 2 located at
1616 and 1730 Gervais Avenue as follows (changes made by the CDRB are underlined if added
and stricken if deleted):
Maplewood Business Center NO.1 (1730 Gervais Avenue):
1. Wall sign locations shall be limited to the corners of the building 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 may be allowed one
individual channel letter and logo, internally illuminated wall sign (logo 58-inches high and
letters 24-inches high) or a cabinet siqn as specified above 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 x 2 feet.
5. One 6-foot tall x 12-foot wide, non-illuminated, freestanding sign to be located along
Gervais Avenue advertising the center.
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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-13-2007
3
Maplewood Business Center No.2 (1616 Gervais Avenue):
1. Wall sign locations shall be centered located 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 identification, 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, shall consist of
individual letters 6 inches in height, and shall identify the company or companies receiving
deliveries 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 alongside the
recessed entry to the rear entry doors.
4. One 6-foot tall x 12-foot wide, non-illuminated, freestanding sign to be located along
Gervais Avenue advertising the center.
5. City staff may approve minor changes to the comprehensive sign plan.
Board member Olson seconded and offered a friendly amendment to change "centered" to
"located" in the first sentence in condition one of Maplewood Business Center NO.2. The friendly
amendment was accepted.
The board voted: Ayes - all
The motion passed.
The board took a five-minute recess.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Sign Code Amendments
1) Dynamic Display Signs
Planner Finwall presented the history and details of the dynamic display sign and gave
examples of sign code amendments some cities in the metropolitan area have adopted
dealing with dynamic display signs. The board discussed the number of dynamic display
signs allowed under the city's settlement agreement with Clear Channel.
Board member Olson said she believes the reason Rebecca Cave showed so poorly in the
election for city council was that she voted to approve this settlement with Clear Channel
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-13-2007
4
disregarding disapproving comments by the community and other committee members. Ms.
Olson said if this settlement agreement is not firm and binding she would like to see it
amended; if it is firm and binding she would like to require stronger language in the sign
code that requires the removal of a minimum of two existing signs for every dynamic sign
that is installed, that the sign requires community messages displayed, and also that any
message displayed on the community center sign can also be displayed on the Myth's or
Clear Channel's signs since they will be public service messages.
Board member Wise referred to the direct correlation noted in the sign study of the
brightness of the sign as it pertains to public safety. Board member Wise said his main
concerns with dynamic signs are location, size and brightness.
Ms. Finwall noted the sections of the sign codes for the cities of Eagan and Minnetonka that
pertain to automatic monitoring and adjustment of the brightness of these signs.
Mr. Wise said he is more concerned with controlling how bright these signs are allowed to
be and where they are located.
City council member Will Rossbach was present at the meeting and commented on the
Clear Channel settlement.
Board member Demko noted the city of Eagan's sign code section on incentives that shows
a reduction in signs and questioned whether Clear Channel will need to abide by that.
Ms. Finwall responded that it would give the company the option for either Incentive One or
Incentive Two.
Mr. Demko said he would like to see a mandatory reduction of sign surface.
Tom McCarver of Clear Channel said he had recently been in Disney Land so he has lost
track of the process, but believes the settlement agreement has been codified and is
binding. Mr. McCarver said the settlement agreement encompasses four total dynamic
signs: one new sign added to the existing sign and two back-to-back signs on Highway 36
and White Bear Avenue. Mr. McCarver said the height increase requirement for the 1-494
sign is to raise it above the existing on-premise signs for better visibility.
The board discussed tabling this issue to allow time to further review the information and
requested a copy of the city of St. Paul's proposed ordinance.
Board member Wise requested information on the current as-builts, locations, sizes, etc., of
signs in Maplewood to help in analyzing and calculating square footage and a copy of any
studies done on lumens.
Board member Wise moved to table sign code amendments for dynamic display signs.
Board member Olson seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
b. March 1, 2006 Draft Sign Code
Board member Wise moved to table the March 1, 2006 draft sign code.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-13-2007
5
Board member Demko seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
x. ADJOURNMENT
Board member Wise moved adjournment of the meeting.
Board member Demko seconded
Ayes - all
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Draft Sign Code
November 21, 2007 for the November 27 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
Major Changes Proposed in the Maplewood Sign Code
May 24, 2006
Over the last two years staff has been receiving comments and guidance from the community
design review board (CDRB) on the creation of a new sign code. The city's sign code gives
guidelines to businesses and residents for visibility and promotion, and protects the public health,
safety, and welfare. Mapiewood's current sign code was adopted in 1977, with only minor
revisions made since that time. Foliowing are the major changes proposed to the sign code:
Temporary Signs
Temporary Portable Signs: The code currentiy aliows temporary portable signs under 16 square
feet to be installed on business property with no permit and no duration or maximum number.
Temporary signs over 16 square feet are only aHowed with a permit. The permit is valid for 30
days per year, per business.
The proposed code would now limit portable temporary signs under 12 square feet to one per
property without a permit and signs over 12 square feet to one per property with a permit. These
signs can be instalied for a maximum of 30 days per year for each property. For businesses with
muitiple occupants, each separate tenant is permitted one sign under 12 square feet with no
more than three signs allowed on the property at anyone time and only one sign over 12 square
feet at anyone time.
Commercial Window Signs: The code currently aliows businesses to place signs in windows not
to exceed 75% of the total area of the window with no time duration.
The proposed code would aHow businesses to place signs in the window not to exceed 30% of
the window, for a total of 30 days per year, per sign.
Off Site Real Estate Signs: The code currently does not have regulations on the number of off
site real estate signs (directional or open house signs not exceeding 3 square feet in area) per
street intersection. These signs are allowed from 12 noon until 8 p.m. on the weekdays and from
6 a.m. Saturday to 8 p.m. on the last day of the weekend.
The proposed code wili limit off site real estate signs to one real estate listing and one real estate
open house sign per corner at each intersection, with a maximum of four separate real estate
listings and four separate open house signs per intersection. The signs would be aHowed within
the right-of-way for up to 30 days per real estate listing and the day of the open house for open
house real estate signs.
Temporary Banners: The current code aHows temporary banners up to 150 square feet for 30
days with no limit to the number of banners per business.
The proposed code would aHow one banner up to 32 or 64 square feet (depending on the zoning
district) for up to 60 days per year, per property. No more than one banner may be displayed per
property at anyone time, except for multiple-tenant buildings which aHow up to three.
Opinion Signs: The current code does not have an ordinance regarding signs that express a
viewpoint of a non-commercial nature.
The proposed code would limit such signs to one per property, up to 32 square feet for residential
and 64 square feet for commercial properties.
Political Campaign Signs: The city adopted a change to the political campaign sign ordinance in
August 2005. The new ordinance applies during local elections only and restricts the number of
days that a resident or business can place a political sign prior to an election or referendum from
30 days to approximately 90 days.
The CDRB's proposed draft sign code expands on that language to cover special elections. The
proposed code aliows political campaign signs to be posted for special elections or referendums
from the date of filing until ten days foHowing said special election or referendum.
Commercial Signs (Areas Zoned LBC, CO, NC, BC, BC-M, M1, and M2)
Wall Signs: The current code allows wall signs up to 20% of the gross wall area on which it is
attached for all commercial areas. The proposed code would change the calculation of wall
signage allowance in the BC, BC-M, M1 and M2 districts to the gross square footage of the
principal structure on the property as follows:
Principal Structure Gross Sq. Ft. of Maximum Size and Coverage Area of Each
Floor Area Sign
Less than 10,000 sa. ft 80 so. ft. or 20% of wall face, whichever is less
10,000 to 20,000 Sq. ft. 100 SIl. ft. or 20% of wall face, whichever is less
20,000 to 100,000 sa. ft. 150 sq. ft. or 15% of wall face, whichever is less
Greater than 100,000 sq. ft. 200 so. ft. or 10% of wall face, whichever is less
The proposed wall sign code for the LBC, CO, and NC districts will remain 20% of the gross wall
area on which it is attached.
Freestanding Signs: The current code regulates freestanding sign size and height within the BC,
BC-M, M 1, and M2 districts based on the size of the lot and setback of the sign. The maximum
freestanding size allowed is 300 square feet and the maximum height is 50 feet. The proposed
code will base the size of freestanding signs on street classification of the closest street to which
each freestanding sign is located as follows:
Classification of Maximum Sign Maximum Height of Maximum Height
Street Size (sq. ft.) Pylon (feet) of Monument Sign
Ifeet)
Principal Arterial 180 25 12
Minor Arterial 140 20 12
Collector Street 100 15 10
Local Street 80 12 10
The current code allows freestanding signs within the LBC, CO, and NC up to 80 square feet and
25 feet high. The proposed code will allow a maximum of 64 square feet and 10 feet high.
Billboards
The current code allows billboards in commercial areas with a sign permit. The proposed code
would allow the use of billboards only with the approval of a conditional use permit. In addition,
they may only be located adjacent to a principal arterial street in the SC, BC, M-1, and M-2
districts and must maintain a distance of 250 feet to a residential district or 800 feet to a
residence.
Possible Timeline for Adoption of the Proposed Sign Code
First Reading of the Sign Code by the City Council:
July 10, 2006
Second and Final Reading of the Sign Code:
July 24 or Aug. 10, 2006
Comments Regarding the Proposed Sign Code
Please direct any comments or concerns you have regarding the proposed sign code to Shann
Finwall at (651) 249-2304 or shann.fmwalllalci.maolewood.mn.us
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand and Shann Finwall, Planners
Dynamic Display Signs
November 21, 2007 for the November 27 CDRB Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the proposed dynamic display
sign code amendment at the November 13, 2007, CDRB meeting. The sign code
amendment proposed was modeled after Eagan's recently adopted code amendment
(Attachment 1). The code amendment is being proposed due to the settlement
agreement with Clear Channel on the installation of an LED-style (dynamic display) sign
face on their billboard located off of 1-494 and Highwood Avenue. The CDRB tabled the
item and requested the following information:
1. St. Paul's proposed dynamic display sign code.
2. Maplewood's existing billboard sizes and locations.
3. Clear Channel lighting studies.
REQUEST
The city council approved the settlement agreement with Clear Channel (Attachment 2).
One of the conditions of the settlement agreement is the city committing to amend the
sign code to allow dynamic display signs. The city council has requested that the
planning commission and the CDRB review and make a recommendation on the
proposed dynamic display sign code amendment.
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2007, the planning commission reviewed the dynamic display sign
code amendment and recommended the item be tabled for review by the CDRB. The
planning commission recommended the CDRB specifically review the following elements
of the proposed amendment: text size, technical language for brightness controls, and
on and off-premise dynamic display signage.
DISCUSSION
St. Paul's Proposed Dvnamic Siqn Code Amendment
Attached is the proposed St. Paul dynamic display sign code amendment (Attachment
3). The St. Paul planning commission has recommended approval of the code
amendment, with the St. Paul city council's review scheduled for November 21, 2007.
City staff will make available the results of that meeting at the CDRB meeting. In
summary, their code amendment would allow the installation of 1 square foot of dynamic
display billboard sign faces for every 6 square feet of illuminated and 8 square feet of
non-illuminated sign faces the applicant removes (it should be noted that St. Paul has
300 billboard signs within their city limits). The code amendment also requires that the
dynamic display signs meet the following requirements:
1. Located within 330 feet of 1-94 or 1-35E and designed to be read from the
highway.
2. Located at least one mile from any other dynamic display billboard sign face.
3. Located only one side of a billboard can contain a dynamic display sign face.
4. Alpha-numeric copy that is at least 15 inches high.
5. Images that are static and remain constant for 12 seconds.
6. Equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the sign's brightness in
response to ambient conditions.
Maplewood Billboards
Maplewood's existing billboard ordinance was adopted in 1982 and permits billboards as
follows:
1. Within commercial zoning districts; maximum size of 450 square feet.
2. A maximum height of 35 feet.
3. Located at least 200 feet to another billboard.
4. Located at least 100 feet to a commercial building.
5. Located at least 200 feet to residential district or 500 feet to residence.
6. Located at least 300 feet to an interchange.
7. Located at least 500 feet to a park.
8. Located at least 10 feet to a property line.
Maplewood has five billboards (refer to billboard map - Attachment 4), all of which were
constructed prior to the city's billboard ordinance. All five billboards are considered legal
nonconforming billboards because they exceed at least one of the billboard ordinance's
requirements for size or setbacks. Following is a breakdown of the five billboards
located within the city limits:
1. 1-494 and Highwood Avenue (2714 Highwood Avenue):
a. Southwesterly corner of Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue, adjacent
to 1-494.
b. Zoning District: Zoned Business Commercial
c. Existing Use: Business and Single Family Home
d. Lot Size: 2.1 Acres
e. Billboard Height: 35 feet
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by 50 feet (700 square feet)
g. Setback Issues: 150 feet to residential window
2. Highway 36 (1790 Gervais):
a. North side of Highway 36, west of White Bear Avenue, south of Gervais
Avenue (within the Cook's Auto Body Repair property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
c. Existing Use: Auto Body Shop
d. Lot Size: 2.20 Acres
e. Billboard Height: 35 feet
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by 50 feet (700 square feet)
g. Setback Issues: adjacent highway 36 entrance ramp
2
3. Highway 36 (1661 Cope Avenue):
a. South side of Highway 36, west of Hazelwood Avenue, north of Cope
Avenue (within the City County Credit Union property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
c. Existing Use: Credit Union
d. Lot Size: 4.59 Acres
e. Billboard Height: 35 feet
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by 50 feet (700 square feet)
g. Setback Concerns: 40 feet from wetland
4. Highway 36 (1255 Highway 36):
a. North side of Highway 36, west of Highway 61, south of Gervais Avenue
(within the Metcalf Moving Storage property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
c. Existing Use: Trucking/Storage Company
d. Lot Size: 3.53 Acres
e. Billboard Height: 35 feet
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 10.5 feet by 36 feet (378 square feet)
g. Setback Issues: None
5. Beam Avenue:
a. South side of Beam Avenue, west of Highway 61, east of Hazelwood
Avenue (within the KSTP radio tower property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
c. Existing Use: Radio Towers/Wetland
d. Lot Size: 43.21 Acres
e. Billboard Height: (NO CITY RECORDS FOUND)
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: (NO CITY RECORDS FOUND)
g. Setback Issues: 80 feet to wetland
Clear Channel Liahtina Studies
City staff contacted Tom McCarver for a copy of the lighting studies Mr. McCarver
referred to in his November 13 CDRB testimony. To date, the city has not received
those studies. The best source of information for the planning commission and CDRB
then is the research conducted by SRF Consulting Group (Attachment 5). The study
states that at a minimum it is important for communities to require all dynamic display
signs 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 sigh
brightness accordingly, is optimal. Eagan's dynamic display ordinance has this
requirement.
Briahtness Levels
The following language was taken from a staff report to the Minnetonka city council
during their review of dynamic displays: "The SRF research determined that the
brightness of signs can be distracting, and if very bright, can actually result in a blinding
effect, particularly at night. Pure white light appears the brightest, and has the most
blinding capability. Unfortunately, there is currently no good way to measure the
brightness of signs in the field. Sign manufacturers can measure the light emitted by
3
LED signs in a controlled factory setting by measuring the 'nit' level, but those conditions
cannot be re-created in actual field conditions. Additionally, the instruments used to
measure brightness are currently very expensive."
With no practical way of measuring brightness, the Minnetonka and Eagan ordinance
incorporate the general standard adopted by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation: "No [sign] may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is greater
than necessary for adequate visibility." The general philosophy is that dynamic signs
should have the same appearance as regular signs both during the day and at night.
Additionally, the both ordinance contains two other general standards found in Indiana
and Ohio regulations, which provide: 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. No sign may be of such intensity or
brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
Dvnamic Displav Sian Definition
After the installation of the Myth's LED sign approximately two years ago the CDRB
reviewed the new LED sign technology. Based on the city attorney's comments at the
time, it was determined that the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs
- outdoor televisions) was different enough from anything that has come before that it
needed its own category in the sign code. The CDRB recommended a definition for the
dynamic display signs (previously called outdoor televisions by the board); they also
recommended that those styles of signs be prohibited in the city. Staff therefore is
recommending the CDRB's proposed definition of the dynamic display signs be included
in the ordinance as opposed to Eagan's definition.
On-Site Dvnamic Displav Sians
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 change in brightness er color. Signs that give public service information,
such as time and temperature are exempt."
As the Maplewood sign code stands today, any permitted sign is allowed an electronic
message board or dynamic displays (signs that have the capability of blinking, flashing,
fluttering or changing in brightness or color) if it is used primarily for a public service
message. This portion of Maplewood's sign code was adopted in 1972 and was
designed to address the old style of bank signs which had light bulbs that could display
time and temperature.
Since that time technology has changed and the prices of the newer electronic signs and
LED signs have come down to the point the type of signs are affordable for many
commercial businesses. For this reason, the city has received four sign permit
applications for such signage in the last seven years. With the recent requests for LED
and advanced electronic reader board signs, the CDRB was requested to interpret what
"primarily" meant in the code. The CDRB determined that primarily means that the sign
must display a public service message at least 31 minutes out of every hour. Only two
of the applicants were interested in installing a sign once they were aware of the code
requirement for displaying primarily public service messaging (Bremer Bank and Days
Inn).
4
The amended prohibited sign code language as proposed by the attorney 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 another without rapid
movement), subject to the requirements of the dynamic display ordinance if applicable.
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.
Eagan's dynamic display sign code allows dynamic displays for on-site and off-site
signs. On-site dynamic displays are allowed on freestanding signs in Eagan if they are
not the predominant feature, if they do not change or move more often than once every
20 minutes, and must meet graphic height requirements based on the speed limit in front
of the sign.
In the past, the CDRB discussed whether the dynamic display sign code amendment
should include on-premise signs as well as off-premise signs. The CDRB decided that
they would prefer to take the time needed to review on-site signs with the overall draft
sign code amendment the city council has directed the CDRB to resurrect in the next
coming months. For this reason, staff recommends adopting only the portions of the
Eagan dynamic display sign code which pertain to off-premise signs and amending the
prohibited sign code language as follows:
"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 siGn means anv siqn identifyinG or advertisinG a business. person.
activity. qoods. products. or services, located on the premises where the siGn 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."
SUMMARY
Modeling our dynamic display sign ordinance after Eagan's ordinance would allow all
five billboards (ten sign faces) in the city to be converted with dynamic display sign faces
as long as the applicant agreed to allowing the city to display five hours of community
messaging per month on each face or agreeing to remove one sign face from the city.
The settlement agreement with Clear Channel commits the city to approving a
conditional use permit for an increase in the Highway 36/White Bear Avenue billboard
height from 35 feet to 50 feet for the installation of a dynamic display sign face. Clear
Channel indicated to the CDRB in their November 13 testimony that this is being
requested to gain visibility above the existing buildings in the area.
Regardless of the city's agreement for the increase in height of that sign, other signs
could feasibly be converted with just a sign face change if the city adopted the Eagan
ordinance in its entirety. There are merits to the use of dynamic display billboard in that
they can also instantly display a message and allows for the display of Amber Alerts and
public service messaging. However, the city should have controls on the location of
those signs to ensure they are not located in areas which could be deemed hazardous
5
or could cause a nuisance to adjacent property owners. For this reason, staff
recommends reviewing the ordinance amendment with the strong feasibility that the
owners would want to convert all of the other billboard sign faces to dynamic display as
well. At a minimum, staff recommends that the installation of a dynamic display sign
face on a billboard be approved through the city's conditional use permit process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve amendments and additions to the Maplewood Sign Code as follows:
1. Section 44-737(3): (Additions are underlined) "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: (Additions are underlined) "On-premise sign means anv sign
identifying or advertising a business. person. activitv. goods. products. or
services. located on the premises where the sign is installed and maintained."
3. Adopt dynamic display sign code language modeled after the Eagan code
amendment as follows (text added to the Eagan ordinance are underlined and
text deleted are stricken):
a. Findings. 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
6
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 conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on
off-premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their
proliferation and their potential threats to public health. safety. and
welfare.
b. Dynamic display sign means any sign desiqned for outdoor use that is
capable of displavinq a video siqnal. includinq, but not limited to, cathode-
rav tubes (CRTs). Iiqht-emittinq diode (LED) displavs. plasma displavs,
liquid-crvstal displavs (LCDs). or other technoloqies used in commerciallv
available televisions or computer monitors.
e)(copt govornmental signs, '<\'ith dynamie display eharacteristies that
appoar to havo movoment or that appear to ehange, eaused by any
method other than physically removing and replacing tho sign or its
eomponents, whether the apparent movement or chango is in the display,
the sign structure itself, or any other eomponent of the sign. This ineludes
a display that incorporates a tochnology or method allowing the sign
surface to ehango the image without having to physieally or mechanieally
replace the sign surface or its eomponents. This also includes any
rotating, re'lol'Jing, moving, flashing, I:llinking, or animatod display and any
display that incorporales rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through
digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or leehnology lhat allo'<\'s lho
sign surface to presont a series of images or displays.
c. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
(a) Dynamic display signs are allowed on sul:lordinate 10 off-premises
signs..Q!l]y, monument and pylon signs, and I:lusiness signs.
Dynamic displays must not be the predominant feature of tho sign
surfaee. Tho remainder of the sign must not have the capability to
have dynamic displays even if net used.
Dynamie display signs am allowed only on monument and pylon
signs for conditionally permitted uses in residontial districts and for
all uses in other districts, sul:ljoct to the requiremonts ef this
Section 11.70. Only one, eontiguous dynamie display area is
allowed on a sign surfaee;
7
f9} A dynamic display siqn is permitted bv conditional use permit
onlv.may not change or move more often than once every 20
minutee;, except one for which changee; are necee;e;ary to correct
hour and minute, date, or temperature information. Time, date, or
temperature information is cone;idered one dynamic die;play and
may not be included as a component of any other dynamic
display. t. die;play of time, date, or temperature must remain f<lr at
least 20 minutes before changing to a different display, but the
time, date, or temperature information ite;elf may change no more
often than once every thr-ee 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 graphice; of this size in the area allowed under clause (a)
above, then no dynamic display ie; allowed;
(f) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze
the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays
must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue
the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately
stop the dynamic display when notified 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 e. 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
e;tructural requiremente; in clause (b) may continue as a
nonconforming development e;ubject to section (insert ordinance
e;ection number). An existing dynamic die;play that cannot meot the
minimum size requirement in claue;e (e) mue;t ue;e the laFgee;t e;ize
poe;e;ible f<lr one line of copy to fit in the available e;pace.
(i) Exceptione;. Recognizing that e;ome dynamic die;playe;, e;uch as
thoe;e ue;ed in point of sale die;pene;ere;, interacti'le vending
machinee; and ATMs, often need to change imagee; more
frequently than dofined by thie; ordinance in order to perform their
intended function and that e;uch image changee; can occur in a
manner in which they do not create die;tractione; for driven;,
8
dynamic aicplayc with a total aFOa of lecc than 1 eO cquare inchec
at any point of cale aispenser, intomcti'Je 'lending machines or
J'.TM may be fully animatod, proviaod they do net flach er I:Jlink in
a manner clearly 'Jisible from the roadway and pnl'/ided they
either meet er exceod the builaing setbacl'.s fer the zoning aistrict
in which they are locatea or are at least 30' from the public right of
way, whichever is greater.
d. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-
finding function as do on-premises signs; they am rostricted in numbor l:Jy
the city; and they are in themcelves distracting and their removal serves
public safety. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the
voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premise signs in certain
settings. This removal results in an overall advancement of one or more
of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any
additional burden caused 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.
(1) Incentive Option A - Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(a) A person or siQn operator may obtain a conditional use
permit for an onhanced dynamic display sign on one
surface of an existing off-premises sign if the following
requirements are met:
1) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its offc
premise sign surfaces by one by permanently
removing, within 15 days after issuance of the
permit, one surface of an off-premises sign in the
city that is owned or leased by the applicant aR€l-is
depicted in table ,II, (which follsIf/S this soction),
which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts
(2) and (3) of this subsection. This removal must
include the complete removal sf 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
enhancoa dynamic display sign does not constitute
a removal of a sign surface.
9
2) 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.
3) If the removed sign surface 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 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 meets 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.
(2) Incentive Option B - Provision of Community and Public Service
Messaging
(a) A person or siqn operator may obtain a conditional use
permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one
surface of an existing off-premise sign if the following
requirements are met:
1) The onhanced dynamic display sign replaces an
existing surface of an existing off-premise sign;
2) 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.
3) 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 onhancod
dynamic display sign face in the city for community
and public service messages at such times as shall
be determined by the city.
(b) If the applicant meetscomplios 'Nith the permit
requirements noted above, the city will issue an enhancod
dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premise
sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy
100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area of an
existinq siqn face and to change no more frequently than
once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet
all other requirements of this ordinance.
10
e. 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 such intensity or brilliance that it
interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign,
device or signal.
(2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to
meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's
instructions. The 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 follo'A'ing appeal procedure:
(a) After making the adjustment required by the city, the
person owning or contrelling the sign may appeal the city's
determination by delivering a written appeal to the city
cierI< within 10 days after the city's non compliance notice.
The 'A'ritten appeal must include the name of a person
unrelated to the person and business making the appeal,
'....ho '....ill serve on the appeal panel.
(b) Within five business days after receiving the appeal, the
city must name a person '....ho 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
representati'Je, and the two of them must appoint a third
member to the panel, '....ho has no relationship to either
~
(c) The appeal panel may de'/elop 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 O'Nner
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 '....hat
level of brightness is needed to meet the brightness
standards within five business days after the hearing
commences. The decision 'NiII be binding on both parties.
(3) All dvnamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date of
this ordinance) that will have illumination by a means other than
11
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.
(4) In addition to the briqhtness standards required above, dvnamic
displav siqns must complv with the citv's outdoor liQhtinQ
requirements (section 44-20(1 )).
p:ordlsign codelLED billboardI11-27-07 CDRB
Attachments:
1. Eagan Dynamic Display Ordinance
2. Clear Channel/Maplewood Settlement Agreement
3. Sl. Paul's Proposed Dynamic Display Ordinance
4. Maplewood Billboard Location Map
5. SRF Consulting Dynamic Display Study
12
Atr .\
ORDINANCE NO. 416 2Nn 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, SUBD. 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. Constructz . 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 tbrough 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 conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with
significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety.
2. 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;
(f) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in
one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to
*'
immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must
immediately stop the dynamic display when notified 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 ATM may be fully
animated, provided they do not flash or blink in a manner clearly visible from the
roadway and provided they either meet or exceed the building setbacks for the zoning
district in which they are located 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 iutended to provide au incentive
optiou for the voluntary and uucompeusated removal of off-premises signs in certain settiugs.
This removal results iu 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 permit is
required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon
removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display
sign permit cannot begin 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
?
;KL.
graphic area and to change no more freqnently 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 such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
2. The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness
standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The 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 tum 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 (Pill #) Location Surface Total
#
2750 Sibley Mem. 1-494 between Hwy. 13 & 2 624 1,248
1 Hwy. Pilot Knob Rd.
(103288501001)
2750 Sibley Mem. 1-494 between Hwy. 13 & 2 672 1,344
2 Hwy. Pilot Knob Rd.
(103288501001)
2950 Hwy. 55 Hwy. 55, junction with 2 250 500
3 (100010001055) Hwy. 149
3875 Sibley Mem. Hwy. 13, between Cedar 2 250 500
4 Hwy. Ave. & ROOn 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 ofI-35E 2 378 756
10 (1022250014001)
2750 Eagandale
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
Att-.z-
FOR PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGING AND
COMMUNITY CENTER SIGN AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES BY AND
BETWEEN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AND CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INe.
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 Maple wood; 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, cbange in color
and/or illumination; signs that will fit the defmition 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 confonnity 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 design and development of all advertising copy, which shall be
subject to Clear Channel's review and approval. The City must provide Clear Channel reasonable advance
notice for any requested announcement. Advertising time not used by the City in any month will be
forfeited, and will not carry into another calendar month. Clear Channel shall have discretion to deliver
this service on one or any combination of its "Dynamic Displays." The City may delegate to another
governmental entity a portion of the time for community and public service announcements, but such
delegation shall not make the delegatee a beneficiary of this paragraph or otherwise entitle that entity to
bring an action to enforce this paragraph. Such enforcement rights shall at all times remain with the City.
Clear Channel's obligations pursuant to this paragraph are contingent upon Clear Channel receiving the
permits described in paragraph 3 below.
2. Clear Channel agrees to purchase and install a Galaxy Pro 20mm LED Dynamic Display
for the Maplewood Community Center ("Galaxy Pro Sign"). The design and specifications of the Galaxy
Pro Sign are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Clear Channel agrees to purchase and install the Galaxy Pro
Sign no later than ninety (90) days after Clear Channel's receipt of the permits described in paragraph 3
below. Clear Channel agrees to remove and dispose of the existing City sign located at the Maplewood
Community Center. Upon installation of the Galaxy Pro Sign, Clear Channel shall transfer to the City all
warranties obtained from the manufacturer. The City shall be solely responsible for all messaging
associated with the Galaxy Pro Sign, as well as all maintenance and upkeep. Clear Channel agrees to
provide adequate training for City Staff for operation of the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear Channel makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever to the City regarding the Galaxy Pro Sign and the City shall look
only to the manufacturer for any claims or causes of action respecting the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear Channel
agrees to provide the City with a 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 pennits for the structure 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 applications will also require that the Dynamic Display signs be permitted to
change no more frequently than once every 8 seconds operating up to 24 hours a day every day of the year.
4. Clear Channel agrees to incorporate its "Dynamic Display(s)" in Maplewood into the
State of Minnesota's "Amber Alert" network, and to operate such Dynamic Displays under 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 interfere with the driver's
operation of a motor vehicle.
c. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
d. All "Dynamic Display(s)" operated by Clear Channel must be equipped with a
mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient
conditions. The 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 futnre ordinance, rule,
regulation or other law which limits the right of Clear Channel to operate its hereinbefore described
"Dynamic Display(s)" consistent with the terms of this Agreement, except to the extent such fnture
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 pursne any action,
criminal or civil, against Clear Channel for the operation of its sign face currently being operated at
Highwood and I-494 within the City of Maplewood.
8. This Agreement, including all rights and obligations provided for herein, shall be binding
upon the successors and assigns of the parties, whether by way of merger, consolidation, operation of law,
assignment, purchase or other acquisition, including subsequent purchasers from Clear Channel. 9. The City
and Clear Channel reserve all rights, remedies and defenses regarding "Dynamic Display" signage should
the City not grant to Clear Channel the permits referenced in paragraph 3 above. In such event, the City
shall be allowed to pursue any remedies available to it and Clear Channel shall be allowed any defenses
available to it. This 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:
Council File #
Mt:-3
Green Sheet #
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
1
2
3 An ordinance amending Leg. Code Chap. 64 regulating
4 signs by permitting the conversion oflegal nonconforming
5 advertising signs ("billboards") to "dynamic display" signs
6 in exchange for permanently removing traditional legal
7 nonconforming advertising signs by adding a definition for
8 such billboards and promulgating regulations for the
9 conversion of such signs.
10
11
12 Note: Sinrde underlininr! and single sil'i!ce l.'iraughs show the changes from the existing
13 Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code as submitted to the Council for first reading on 11/21/07.
14 Double underlining and .d.fJ~J}gle at. j.'re j~:'mJg(le show revisions made by the Planning
15 Commission when itfinalized its recommendation on 11/16/07.
16
17
18 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
19
20 Section 1
21
22 That Legislative Code 9 Sec. 64.104.B and the various definitions
23 contained therein is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph
24 under that section to read:
25
26 Billboard with dvnamic disvlav. A billboard on which the sign message
27 moves or changes, or appears to do so, through anv method other than
28 phvsically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether such
29 movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or anv other
30 component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a
31 technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without
32 having to replace the sign face or its components physically or mechanically.
33 This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or
34 animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED
35 lights manipulated through digital input. "digital ink" or any other method or
36 technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays,
37 except for time and temperature displays that OCCUpy less than twenty (20)
38 percent of the billboard face.
39
40
41 Section 2
42
43 That Legislative Code S 64.302 entitled "Nonconforming signs;
44 exceptions," is hereby amended by removing obsolete language regarding
45 the "move to conformance" and in its place adding new provisions to provide
46 for and regulate the conversion of existing legal nonconforming billboards to
47 ones with dynamic displays so as to read as follows:
48
49 Sec. 64.302. Nonconforming advertising signs; exeeptioHsconversion to
50 billboard with dynamic displav.
51
52 "'\.fly advc-rtising sign existing as of the date of this section (February
53 2, 1988) wmch is located in a zoning district which does not permit
54 alh,ertising signs or which does not conform to the size, height and/or
55 spacing requirements of this c-llapter Hlfry!ole replaced, relocated or renovatcd
56 in the mllflfler provided in this section; provided, however, that mICh activity
57 shall!olring the sign into greater cOHlflliance with t.OO j3rovisions oHms
58 c-llaj3ter and satisfy the follO'Ning standards:
59
60 (a)}"d'/ertising signs to !ole r6j3laced, relocated or renov-ated on the
61 same zORing lot:
62 (1 )The zoning lot must !ole 'lIithin a zoning district in whic-ll advertising
63 signs are a j3ermittcd usc, as sj3ccificd in scction 66.214(a) or (I), or as j3crmitted in a
64 special sign district aj3j3rovcd !oly the city cOllilcil.
65
66 W Intent and purpose. Studies show that there is a correlation between driver
67 distraction and accidents. Signs with dynamic displavs can be a cause of driver
68 distraction. Along highwavs. signs with dynamic displavs tend to distract drivers ifthev
69 are waiting to see the next change. especiallv if it is a continuation of the message or if
70 the transition uses special effects. Signs with lettering that is too small to read at a glance
71 also cause driver distraction; whereas, tvpical time and temperature signs. which can be
72 read at a glance. are not a significant distraction. This section allows for the conversion
73 of illuminated billboards to billboards with dvnamic displavs subiect to standards that
74 maintain highwav safetv.
75
76 Dynamic displav technologies can greatlv expand the advertising capacitv and graphic
77 flexibility of billboards. However, Section 64.420 prohibits anv new advertising signs in
78 the city in order to protect and improve views. aesthetics. community pride and
79 investment and the visibilitv onocal businesses. One purpose of this chapter is to
80 reduce the number of billboards in the city. but the city government is extremelv limited
81 in its ability to cause their removal. The provisions of the present section seek to offer
82 benefits both to the public and to billboard owners. This section allows increased
83 advertising through the addition of dvnamic displav technologies on existing billboards
84 along certain freewavs in exchange for voluntary reductions in the munber of billboards
85 in the city.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
(b) Except in a B4 or B5 zoning district, a legally nonconforrrllng. illuminated billboard
may be converted to a billboard with a dynamic displav if the following conditions are
met:
ill The billboard is located within three hundred thirty (330) feet ofI-94 or
1-35E north ofI-94 and is designed to be read from the highway.
ill The billboard is at least one (1 ) mile measured 1ineallv along the freeway
from any other billboard with a dynamic display designed to be read by
drivers heading in the same direction on the highway.
ill Only one sign face on a billboard structure is converted.
ill The billboard is more than one thousand (1.000) feet from any residence.
regardless of municipal boundaries. that is in a residential or TN
traditional neighborhood zoning district and has windows which are facing
and from which the dvnamic display is directlv visible.
ill The owner of the billboard shall apply for and receive a sign permit for the
conversion from the city.
@ As part of the permit application. the applicant shall agree in writing to
remove permanently other existing billboards in the city; for each square
foot of dynamic display space being created. futIl' six (6) square feet of
illuminated billboard faces. or sm eight (8) square feet of non-illuminated
faces shall be removed. Billboards that the applicant owns or controls in
anv of the following areas must be taken down before billboards taken
down in other areas of the city will be counted toward this removal
requirement: the Mississippi River Critical Area; locallv designated
historic districts. the B4 and B5 downtown zoning districts. residential
zoning districts. and anv other locations designated for billboard removal
bv a resolution of the city councilor the planning commission. Billboards
may be counted toward the removal if they have been or will be removed
between one (1) year prior to the application and two (2) months following
the issuance of the permit. The removals must include the complete
removal of the billboard structures including the foundations of any
freestanding billboards.
Prior to approval ofthe sign permit, the applicant must agree in writing
that the city may remove the billboards if the applicant has not done so
before the new electronic message sign is put into operation. and the
applicant must submit a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the
city to pay the city's cost for that removal. The applicant must also agree
in writing that the removal of the billboards is done voluntarily and the
applicant has no right, under any law. to compensation from any
governmental unit for the removed signs.
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
No application may be approved if the removed billboards can be legally
rebuilt. If the application is approved. the sign permit shall specify terms
and conditions for assuring the permanence of the removals. which may
include penalties such as liquidated damages. The terms and conditions
shall give assurance to the city that the owners of the properties from
which billboards are removed will not have any right under any law to
re-establish the billboards or to receive compensation from any
governmental unit for the removed billboards.
ill If the removed signs are ones for which a state permit is required. the
applicant and owners must surrender such permits to the state. The
billboard with a dynamic display may not be put into operation until proof
is provided to the city that such state permits have been surrendered.
W In addition to the other regulations in this chapter. a billboard with a dynamic
display shall conform to the following operational standards:
ill All alpha-numeric COpy must be at least fifteen (15) inches high.
ill The images and messages displayed must be static. and the transition from
one static display to another must be direct and immediate without any
special effects.
ill Each image and message displayed must be complete in itself. and may
not continue on the subsequent one.
ill Each image and message must remain constant for at least eiglN (8) twelve
(12) seconds before changing to the next one.
ill No sign may be brighter than necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
@ No sign may be of such intensity or brilliances as to impair the vision of a
driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with drivers'
operation of their vehicles.
ill No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign. device. or signal. or located where
it would do so. as determined by the city traffic engineer.
lID. A billboard converted for dynamic display. on which more than twenty
(20) percent of the sign face is changeable. must have a mechanism that
automatically adiusts the sign's brightness in response to ambient
conditions. It must also be equipped with a means to turn off the display
or lighting immediately if it malfunctions. and the sign owner or operator
must turn off the sign or lighting immediately upon notification by the city
that sign malfunctions are causing it to be out of compliance with the
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
operational standards in this section.
{2l The billboard owner or operator must adiust the sign to meet the
brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The
adiustment must be made immediately upon receiving a notice of
non-compliance from the city; however. the sign owner or operator may
appeal the city's notice of non-compliance to the board of zoning appeals.
Section 3
That Legislative Code S 64.201 entitled "Duties ofthe zoning administrator" is a
housekeeping measure intended to reflect the reassignment of responsibility for sign
variances from the Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals previously
approved in Council File No. 05-632 so that Leg. Code S 64.201(e), in order to remain
consistent with other paragraphs in the Zoning Code, shall read as follows:
Sec. 64.201 Duties of the zoning administrator
(e) The zoning administrator shall not grant any variances with respect to this chapter in
carrying out his duties as zoning administrator. Variances may be granted by the
planning eommiosionboard of zoning appeals. The zoning administrator shall grant a
permit upon a finding of compliance with the conditions imposed by this chapter.
Section 4
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage, approval
and publication.
I Yeas I Nays I Absent I
Benanav
Bostrom
Harris
Helgen
Lantry
Montgomery
Thune
Requested by Department of:
Planning and Economic Development
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission
to Council
By:
There are Five Billboards in the City Limits
All Billboards are Owned by Clear Channel
M. Y
Little Canada
:::0 j{-'"
o .
en
CD
~.
CD
Q)
m
'0
.;.::
'm
o
en
,..
"U
III
C
2714 Highwood
Carver Auto
700s.1.
N
w
E
~~. ...~
Maplewood Billboards
s
At'r.5
"DYNAMIC" SIGNAGE:
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
Pal!e No.
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 H D "B 'gh "A"" Dri D' .? 15
. ow oes n tness uect ver lstractlOn. ......................................
3.6 Billboard and Other Signage Regulation: a.................................................. 16
Minnesota Perspective
3.7 Billboard and Ollier Signage Regulation: Ollier........................................... 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 - Current Sign Technologies
Appendix B - Outdoor Advertising Sign Brightness Defmitions
Appendix C - Electronic Outdoor Advertising Device Visual Performance Definitions
A.2
LIST OF TABLES
Pal!:e No.
Table I: FHW A Reanalysis of Faustman's Findings...................................................... 5
Table 2: Crash Causation Summary................................................................................ 11
Table 3: Percentage of CDS Crashes lnvolving Inattention-.......................................... 12
Distraction Related Crash Causes
Table 4: Specific Sources of Distraction Among Distracted Drivers: ............................ 12
Table 5: Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Southbound ..................................... 13
Table 6: Telespot Sign Crash Rates-Expressway Northbound ....................................... 14
Table 7: Number of New Messages Displayed at Various Driver Speeds and............... 21
Time lnterva1s Between Messages
LIST OF FIGURES
Pal!:e No.
Figure 1: VicRoads' Ten Point Road Safety Checklist.................................................... 18
i\3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was precipitated by concerns raised by the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota in regard
to the installation of two LED ("light emitting diode'') billboards along Interstate 394 and
Interstate 494. The LED function was applied to two existing "static" image billboards located
adjacent to the interstate. Following installation of the LED function, the City turned off the
power to the signs though a stop work order based on current city ordinance prohibiting flashing
signs, which is broadly defined, as well as permitting requirements for the retrofitting of the
signs to the upgraded technology. The billboard owner sued the City, and the court response to
this legal action as of the writing of this study has been to allow limited use of the LED
billboards. A moratorium on further signage of this type was established by the City to facilitate
the study of issues related to driver distraction and safety and appropriate regulatory measures
for LED and other types of changeable signage.
Ibis study was undertalcen 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 sigu. 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. Ibis 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 interest in these issues. However, it is not the
intention of this report to provide a comprehensive study of all issues raised by dynamic signage,
or other types of billboards, but rather to focus narrowly on the issues of concern to the City of
Minnetonlca.
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.
1\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 signs on motorists. This study also explores regulatory measures enacted in
other jurisdictions to address concerns related to driver distraction. Due to time and scope
constraints, this report is not comprehensive, but rather addresses the most frequently cited and
easily accessible infonnation 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 sigu ordinance issue. In others, Internet searches were conducted using words and
references that apply specifically to dynamic signs.
Several sign manufacturers and sign companies provided an industry perspective through a
workshop with the SRF Consulting Group and the City of Minnetonka staff on February 27,
2007. This meeting yielded information about sign characteristics that can be addressed through
policy and regulatory measures. Daktronics, a company that manufactures and markets LED
signs, was also helpful in this regard, providing iuformational materials about characteristics of
signs that can be regulated and examples of city sign ordinances with which they are familiar.
3.0 SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS
This following section presents a summary of expert opinions and selected driver distraction
research conducted by government and academic researchers examining roadside signage and its
effects on the driving task Studies are organized around critical questions with serious research
ramifications.
. Is there reason to believe that billboards are a source of distraction?
. Is there reason to believe that "dynamic" billboards are an additional source of
distraction?
. How much distraction is a problem?
. How does "brightness" affect driver safety concerns?
. How should billboards and other signage be regulated from a driver safety perspective?
AS
3.1 Expert Opinions
A combination of researchers and public policy experts were interviewed for this study.
hulividuals 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 MnIDOT. 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 MnIDOT, wrote the 2003 teclmical
memorandum that addresses allowable changes for outdoor advertising devices. Mr.
Robinson indicated that the memo was originally written in 1998 to establish a pertnitted
rate of change for tri-vision signs and that the application to electronic billboards was not
considered. The minimum change rate of 4.9 seconds for 70 mph roadways and 6.2
seconds for 55 mph roadways was based on the travel time between static signs spaced at
the minimum allowed distance apart. Mr. Robinson also indicated that the memo is not a
MnIDOT 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 FHW A's original (1980) study on electronic
billboards. He has continued his active involvement in this field, and advises C'JOvermnent
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 connnents on drafts of this report. In later conversations related to
his review , Wachtel stated his belief that even though visual fixations on roadway signs
decrease as route familiarity increases, a strength of the new digital billboards is that they
can present messages that are always new. Thus, the conclusion from the 1980 FHW A
study is another argument against these billboards; namely, drivers spend more time
looking at the unfamiliar signs than at familiar ones, suggesting digital billboards are
more dangerous than traditional fixed billboards. Wachtel also suggested his preference
for a goal to have any given driver experience only one, or a maximum of two, messages
from an individual roadside sign.
3.2 Billboards: a Source of Driver Distraction?'
The purpose of a sign is to attract the attention of passersby so that a message is conveyed. To
the degree signs attract the attention of vehicle drivers, they may distract them from the activity
of driving. While this report primarily examines the impact of dynamic roadside advertising, the
role traditional static advertising plays in driver distraction is discussed below.
The relationship between roadside advertising and crash rates has been the subject of several
studies. The majority of this research was conducted in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. While some of
the earliest studies have been subsequently criticized for flawed methodologies and improper
statistical techniques, some findings emerge when the totality of the studies are examined. One
of these findings is thaJ the correlation between crash rates and roadside advertising is strongest
in complex driving environmenta. 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 fouud that increases in the number of advertising signs per mile are
correlated with increases in motor vehicle crash rates. It also found that intersections
with at least four advertising signs experienced three times more crashes than
intersections with no advertising signs. Conversely, the less rigorous Michigan study
found the presence of advertising signs had no effect on the number of crashes.
Iowa State College, Do Road Signs Affect Accidents? (Lauer & McMonagle, 1955)3
A laboratory test was created to determine the effect of advertising signs on driver
behavior. The results of this study found removing all advertising signs from the driver's
field of vision did not improve driver performance. When signs were included, driver
performance was slightly better. Note that laboratory methods used in this study are
considered to be dated by today's standards.
,A7
Faustman (California Route 40) Field Study (1961)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 FHWA more than a decade later. The
original analysis tried to improve upon previous research by limiting variables, such as
roadway geometric design and roadway access controls. The 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
el<pected crash rates. An analysis of variance of the regression coefficients found that the
number of billboards on a section was statistically significant. The reanalysis found a
strong correlation between the number of billboards and crash rates as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. FHWA Reanalysis ofFaustman 's Findings.
Expected No. of
Accidents in a
5-year Period
5.92
6.65
7.38
8.11
8.84
9.57
No. of Billboards
Cumulative Increase
in Accident Rate
o
1
2
3
4
5
12.3
24.2
37.0
49.3
61.7
Federal Highway Administration
Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial
Electronic Variable-Message Slgnage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980) 6
This extensive review provides a comprehensive discussion of roadside advertising
research as of 1980. The study authors noted "attempts to quantify the impact of roadside
advertising on traffic safety have not yielded conclusive results." The authors found that
courts typically rule on the side of disallowing billboards because of the "readily
understood logic that a driver cannot be expected to give full attention to his driving tasks
when he is reading a billboard." Because the distraction evidence is not conclusive, these
decisions were generally not based on empirical evidence.
The research review noted that accident reports often cite "driver distraction" as a default
category used by uncertain law enforcement officers who must identify the cause of a
crash. As a result, the authors believe crashes due to driver distraction are not always
properly identified. In addition, law enforcement officers often fail to indicate the precise
crash locations on crash reports, making it difficult to establish relationships between
crashes and roadside features.
AS
Accident Research Unit, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham
Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements (Crundall et
al., 2005) 7
This research used eye movement tracking to measure the difference between street-level
advertisements and raised advertisements in terms of how they held drivers' attention at
times when attention should have been devoted to driving tasks. The srody found that
street-level advertising signs are more distracting than raised signs.
3.3 "Dynamic" Billboards; an Additional Source of Distraction?
Signage owners or 1easers want to incorporate dynamic fearores into their signage for a number
ofreasons: to enhance the sign's ability to attract attention, to facilitate display oflarger amounts
of information within the same sign area, to conveniently change message content, and to
enhance profitability. As mentioned earlier, this report uses the term "dynamic" signs to refer to
non-static signs capable of displaying multiple messages. Several srodies documented the ability
of a sign to accomplish the first of these goals.
University of Toronto
Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs (Seljer & Smiley,
2004) 8
Research done at the University of Toronto compared driver behavior subject to passive
(static) and active (dynamic) signs. The srody 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 d1ll'ation 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. F'or vehicles with close
following distances, or under unusually complex driving conditions, a perception delay of
this length could increase the chance of a crash. The following findings were reported in
this study:
. 88% of the subjects made long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds).
. 22% of all glances made at all signs were long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds).
. 20% of all the subjects made long glances of over two seconds.
. As compared to static and scrolling text signs, video and tri-vision signs attracted
more long glances.
. Video and scrolling text signs received the longest average maximum glance
duration.
. All three ofthe 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) ,.
The City of Seattle commissioned a report in 2001 to examine the relationship between
electronic signs with moving/flashing images and driver distraction. The report found
that electronic signs with moving images contribute to driver distraction for longer
intervals than electronic signs with no movement. Following are major points made in
the report:
. New video display technologies produce images of higher quality than previously
available technologies. These signs have improved color, image quality and
brightness.
. New video display technologies use LEDs with higher viewing angles. Drivers can
read the sigiJ. 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 lilltil it is
completed rather than the driving task at hand.
o 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 the viewer to concentrate as the message is revealed.
Based on the size and resolution of the sign, and the length of the message, this could
range from less than one second to many seconds.
. A sequence of images or messages that tell a story, during which the driver's
attention may be captured for the entire duration that the sign is visible. Instead of
merely glancing at the sign and then returning concentration to the driving task, more
attention may be given to the message.
. Anticipation of a new image appearing, even if the expected new image is not related
to the first image. In this case, the driver may be distracted while waiting for the
change.
Federal Highway Administration
Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial
Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980) 11
This research provides information on the use of on-premise Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signs (CEVMS) that display public service information (i.e,. time and
temperature) and advertising messages along the Interstate highway system. The
research found the following major considerations:
. Highway Slo)fety Considerations
The link between changing messages that attract drivers' attention and crashes has
been an issue of concern since the earliest forms of electronic signage became
available. This study thoroughly reviewed the literature seeking information
regarding a potential link between CEVMS and crashes:
''Although a trend in recent findings has begun to point to
a demonstrable relationship between CEVMS and
accidents, the available evidence remains statistically
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
~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 ways that can attract
drivers' attention at greater distances, hold their attention
longer, and deliver a wider variety of information and
image stimuli than is possible by the use of conventional
advertising signs. "
Texas Transportation Institute for FHWA, Impacts of Using Dynamic Features to
Display Messages on Changeable Message Signs (Dudek et al., 2005) ,.
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
o 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:
o Flashing messages did not produce faster reading times.
o Flashing messages may have an adverse effect on message comprehension for
unfamiliar drivers.
o 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 ofthe driver's time and attention to comprehend the message.
In the case of electronic billboards, this suggests that billboards that flash may require
more time and attention to read than static ones.
3.3.1 OTHER INFORMATION
NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet Forum (2000) 13
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration held an internet forum to gather
research and public comment related to driver distraction with an emphasis on the use of
cell phones, navigation systems, wireless Internet and other in-vehicle devices. During
this forum, participants were invited to take a poll to determine the most prominent driver
~12
distraction issues. Electronic billboards were identified as one of six noted sources of
distraction.
Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Report of the Road Safety Committee on the
Inquiry Into Driver Distraction (2006) 1
This report identified road signs and advertising as one of the largest sources of driver
distraction. At least three billboards near Melbourne, Australia display moving images.
"The Committee considers these screens to be at the high
end of potential visual distraction and accordingly, present
a risk to drivers. "
The study also included a quote from the Manager of the Road User Behaviour group at
VicRoads (the State's road and traffic authority) from a December 2005 hearing:
What we do know is when there is movement involved, such
as flicker or movement in the visual periphery, that this is
more likely to capture a driver's attention. We actually are
hard-wired as human beings to movement, so particularly
moving screens and information that scrolls at
intersections and in highly complex driving situations -
these are risky, and in particular researchers have been
most concerned about those sort of advertising materials.
This opinion would suggest that electronic signs can present a distraction to drivers.
3.4 How Much Distraction Is a Problem?
A number of studies were identified that discussed concerns with driver distraction generally. It
should be noted that some of the studies cited use specific crash data that is ten or more years
old. Direct comparison of distraction sources to influences of today may not be completely valid
due to increased technological sophistication of distracting influences. These could include in"
vehicle technology (e.g., navigation systems, MP3 players, DVD players, CD players, computer
systems, etc.) as well as other potentially distracting influences (e.g., cell phones, text messaging,
dynamic signage, other roadway elements, etc.) that were not commonplace when the data for
these studies was collected:
Australian Road Research Board
Investigations of Distraction by Irrelevant Information (Johnston & Cole, 1976) ,.
This research used five experiments to test whether drivers could maintain efficient
performance in their driving tasks while being subjected to content that was information
rich, but irrelevant to driving. The findings were that a small, but statistically significant
amount of performance degradation was observed when the participant was under a
critical load of stimuli.
~13
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration/ Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute
Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the
100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data (Klauer et at, 2006) ,.
This study analyzed the data from a driving database developed by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. This database contained exhaustive data recorded by
instrumented vehicles that measured glance position, impairment, drowsiness, risk taking
and many other parameters potentially involved in crash causation. Vehicles were
instrumented so that an observer did not need to be in the vehicle to collect data.
Automated data collection reduced the problem of an observer influencing driver
behavior. The study found that glances of two seconds or greater doubled the risk of
crashes or near-crashes. The study also found that 22 percent of crashes are accompanied
by "secondary-task" distraction whether inside or outside the vehicle.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationl Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute
Driver Inattention is a Major Factor in Serious Traffic Crashes (2001) \7
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration commissioned a study to examine
the causes of crashes. The study gathered information from four areas throughout the
country and used data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) from
Apri11996-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) 18
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.
1l-14
Table 3. Percentage of CDS Crashes Involving Inattention-Distraction
Related Crash Causes
. 'lOot 'ihf
Datil Element Dri't'... Crasb..
AWmIive M not: distracted 46.6% 23...%
I..oked but did not ... $.6111 9:1%
DilIttaoted Iw other o"""",,nl t......ifiedJ 0.9% 1.6%
rn_ted bv "","'.. ......1 in vObioto {specificdl 0.3% 0.5%
Di&t1'acted whlI. di~, talkillg, or IistonI.og to coIlular O.I%@ 0.1%@
Dhono noooliou."d .roc or;;t.-;,,,,, -ociflcdl
DiBtraoted whllo oull..tilI. climore ootllr<>Jo 0,216@ 0.3%@
Distrocted whllo rodin, .....1Ie, CD r.....ifiedl t.2% 2.1111
Dlstraoted wMe ..log other dev!.....llJ..I In volllcle 0.1% O~
Ir.....ifled]
81...,. .r rol1..1AAn 1,$% 2.6%
Di_d bv outside n.....,., .bjeol. OJ' ov..,; [.....mcdl 2.0% 3.2%
B.tlml .r driJIkin. 0.1$ 0.2%
s ated 0.1% 0.2%
IllslW>tedllnaltenli... del'ai!s unknown t,SlII 2.6111
Other dilItraelion Ilj>\!Oili..n t.3% 2.2l11
uol<Mwu/N. Driver 38.5% 46,0.%
Welghteddri"", N ~ 4.627.000 (7,943. uMV.I,-, ~ """ N . :1,619,000 (4.536);
to ()rder for I crash- t(l elustfied "'ttentiY~" ill involved 4rivt;t. bed to 130 (lltDified "'.uontiv....
\W - estimate baml on $.9- oaSes.
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes (Stutt$ et aI., 2001) 19
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 AmonR Drivers in Distraction-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
Olher 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
A15
Three studies were found which attempted to measure driver behavior specifically in response to
dynamic signage. Two of these studies demonstmted a potential relationship between dynamic
signage and crash rates:
Minnesota Department of Transportation, The Effectiveness and Safety of Traffic
and Non-Traffic Related Messages Presented on Changeable Message Signs
(CMS) (Harder, 2004) ~o
This study used a driving simulator to measure the effect of Department of
Transportation changeable message signs on traffic flow. The two messages evaluated
were a "crash ahead" warning and an AMBER Alert (child abduction information). The
research found that just over half of the participants used the "crash ahead" message and
60 percent could recall the AMBER Alert with scores of Good or Better. Over one fifth
of the participants slowed down by at least 2 mph upon seeing the AMBER Alert,
demonstrating that messages relevant to drivers are associated with changes in at least
some drivers' travel speed.
Decision of the Outdoor Advertising Board in the Matter of John Donnetly & Sons,
Permitee, Telespot 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
(1/1/1970- (1/1/1973- Change
12/31/1972 3/31/1975
29.0 20.0 -31.0
39.0 15.6 -60.0
~16
Table 6. Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Northbound
Average pel' year Average per year Average
(111/1970- (111/1973- Percent
12/31/1972) 3/31/1975) ChanlIe
Crashes where
the sign was viewable 46.3 42.7 -7.8
(south of silIn)
Crashes where
the 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 tenninated.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study - Impacts of an
Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic (1994) 22
A study prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) examined
crash rates betore and after an advertising variable message sign was installed in 1984 on
the Milwaukee County Stadium, home of the Milwaukee Brewers professional baseball
team. Crash statistics were analyzed for the three years before and the one and three
years after the sign was installed. As they are often associated with driver distraction,
side-swipe and rear-end crashes, as well as total crashes, were examined for both the
eastbound and westbound directions. The sign was much more visible to eastbound
traffic due to the stadium's proximity to the roadway and the amount of visual
obstructions for westbound traffic.
The analysis found an increase in crash rates for all crash types in the eastbound direction
after the sign was installed. Most pronounced was an 80 percent increase in side-swipe
crashes after the first year of installation. Results in the westbound direction were mixed,
with a 29 percent decrease in crashes the first year the sign was in place and a 35 percent
increase in the three years the sign was in place. Although no control roadway sections
were studied, an interview with the study author revealed that the introduction of a sign
on a high volume curving roadway may have introduced enough distraction to an already
demanding driving environment to explain the higher crash rate in the eastbound
direction. The study author also stated that the study was not able to establish a causal
relationship between the sign and the crash rates.23
Federal Highway Administration
Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention and Distraction (2001) 2'
The Federal Highway Administration published a comprehensive report in 2001 that
consisted of a literature search, literature review and a description of research needs for
&17
the topic of electronic billboards (EBBs). While the study did not conduct any new
research, it does provide an excellent summary of the role electronic billboards play in
traffic safety and includes good descriptions of the terminology related to electronic
billboards. Selected findings from that synthesis are provided below:
"In most instances, researchers were not able to verifY that an
EBB was a major factor in causing a crash. Only one study
since the 1980 review and one lawsuit were identified. "
"Studies were identified that verified that: an increase in
distraction, a decrease in conspicuity, or a decrease in
legibility may cause an increase in the crash rate. "
"Commercial EBBs are designed to 'catch the eye' of drivers.
Their presence may distract drivers from concentrating on the
driving task and visual surrounds. "
"There is indication that individual differences in age and
driving experience may be important considerations in driver
distraction, and are relevant to understanding driver responses
to the external environment. 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 recolI1illended 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 finding that links signs with crash rates does not mean that a causal relationship
does not exist. He indicated that he has been contacted by several law enforcement
agencies regarding the link between driver distraction and dynamic message
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 brightness of any sign, static or dynamic, raises concerns with discomfort or disabitity 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 glare are not unique to dynamic signs, newer sign technologies, which
often include dynamic components, have the technical capability to emit more light and/or
respond to ambient light conditions, raising additional concerns about sign brightness in areas
where signs compete with regulatory traffic signs or signals.
3.6 Billboards and Other Sign age Regulation: a Minnesota Perspective
Roadside signage is governed by policies and laws at the federal, state and local levels.
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 173 seeks to "reasonably and effectively regulate and control the
erection or maintenance of advertising devices on land adjacent to such highways." The statute
requires adherence to federal statutes with respect to interstate and primary systems of highways.
Minnesota Statute Ch. 173.16 Subd. 3. regulates lighting of signs. Signs which are "illuminated
by any flashing light or lights, except those giving public service information" (time, date,
temperature, weather or news) are prohibited. This section also states:
(b) Advertising devices shall not be erected or maintained which are not effectively
shielded SO as to prevent beams or rays 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) ~6
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation also published a literature review report to
further explain the current state of EBB research. Although much of the information is
A-19
mentioned in other sections of this report, the Wisconsin reVIeW did summarize
Wisconsin's regulations for electronic billboards.
. No message may be displayed for less than one-half second;
. No message may be repeated at intervals ofless than two seconds;
. No segmented message may last longer than 10 seconds;
. No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or
faster than 32 columns per second (light column defined as pixel column);
. No variable message sign lamp may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is
greater than necessary for adequate visibility.
National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies (1999) 2?
Although this survey is eight years old, it generated the following information related to
electronic billboards:
. Nine states had specific regulations governing signs,
. Nine states had regulations on tri- vision signs that were either being drafted or in
pending legislation,
. Fifteen states had regulations regarding moving parts and/or lights,
. Nine state had no regulations on tri-vision signs, and
. Six states and Washington, DC, prohibited tri-vision signs.
An investigation into state outdoor advertising regulations was also conducted.
. Thirty-six states had prohibitions on signs with red, flashing, intermittent, or moving
lights,
. Twenty-nine states prohibited signs that were so illuminated as to obscure or interfere
with traffic control devices, and
. Twenty-nine states prohibited signs located on interstate or primary highway outside
of the zoning authority of incorporated cities within 500 ft of an interchange or
intersection at grade or safety roadside area.
Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Report of the Road Safety Committee on the
Inquiry into Driver Distraction (2006) "
This report, cited earlier for its driver distraction opinions, identifies road signs and
advertising as one of thl;} 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 reqillred
(eg. high pedestrian volume intersection); or
5. is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, for
example, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or
has red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles, or arrows; or
6. requires close study from a moving or stationary vehicle in a
location where the vehicle would be unprotected from
passing traffic; or
7. invites drivers to turn where there is fast moving traffic or
the sign is so close to the turning point that there is no time
to signal and turn safely; or
8. is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing; or
9. has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway;
or
10. could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to
drivers.
&21
VicRoads also gives operational requirements for electronic advertising message signs.
Signage must:
. not display animated or moving images, or flashing or intermittent lights;
. remain 1mchanged for a minimum of30 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 arc 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 malce
a sign ordinance no longer applicable if the ordinance has been specifically written to address a
certain type of sign technology. Performance based measJ!Yes 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 LEOs). For the purpose
of zoning, some additional terms are also used to describe sign characteristics. Any regulatory
efforts should take care to precisely defme terminology. One possible resource in this effort is
"Street Graphics and the Law," published by the American Planning Association (APA)
Planning Advisory Service29.
4.2 Types of Regulatory Measures
4.2.1 Complete or Partial Prohibition of Electronic Sitpls
Some cities have completely prohibited the 11$e 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 ouly 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 messagl'l 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.
j23
Table 7. Number of New Messages Seen at Various Driver Speeds and
Time Intervals Between Messa es
Spood
(mph)
Time sign is
clearly visible*
(seconds)
Number of Messa es Seen
Message Display Time (seconds)
6
8
10
60
1800
(30 minutes)
1
1
1
3600
(1 hour)
1
1
1
I 30 60 11 9 7 2
i 45 1 40 8 6 5 2
I 55 33 7 5 4 2
. Assuming 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
transi tioning into the next screen.
Some codes specify how an image changes, while other codes prohibit the use of transitions.
The change from one image to another can be accomplished by various techniques: no transition
_ simply a change from one screen to another, or fading or dissolving one image into the next.
Flashing, spinning, revolving, or other more distracting transition methods can be prohibited,
allowing businesses to use sequencing in an effective manner without making the signs overly
distracting. Another way of regulating distracting transitions is to require a very short time of a
dark or empty screen betweel\ 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
Jt.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 Spacing
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 information about optimal electronic sign spacing. Seattle adopted a 35-
foot spacing requirement for their electronic signs based upon multiple levels of analysis of the
downtown city environment in which these signs are present.
Due to the varying characteristics of individual roadways in this regard, overlay districts
allowing dynamic signage with conditions specific to that area could be considered. Overlay
districts could also take into account other locational factors such as offset from the roadway and
conspicuity. Determining appropriate offsets from the roadway must consider roadway clear
zone requirements as well as spacing of frontage roads and access points, while also considering
the signage too far outside the driver's line of sight may be a further distraction. Conspicuity, a
sign's ability to stand out from its surroundings, should also be considered.
4.2.6' Text Size
Legibility is another important property of signage. The preferred approach used within highway
signing is that drivers can read text that is 1 inch high from 30 feet away. Larger text is needed
for signs to be legible at greater distances. Large, legible text allows the driver to read the
billboard from varying distances and focus on the driving task. Conversely, with small text, the
driver is more likely to focus on the sign for a longer period of time and possibly be more
adversely distracted. However, the size or type of text or the amount of text due is rarely
regulated.
~25
4.2.7 Brightness Limitations on Electronic SiJ.ms
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. Iluminance 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 tenn is used to quantifY electronic sign
brightness. The unit of measurement for luminance is nits, which is the total amount of light
emitted from a sign divided by the surface area of the sign (cande1as per square meter).
Many, but not all, LED-type signage can be time-programmed to respond to day and nighttime
light levels. Higher-end signage types are equipped with photo cells to respond to ambient light
conditions. Despite these controls, LED signs have been observed that are considered to be
excessively bright. Sign industry representatives indicate that excessive brightness can be the
result of 1) sign malfunction or improper wiring, 2) lack of photo cell and/or dimming
mechanism, or 3) operator error or lack of understanding that brightness is not necessarily an
advantage, especially if it makes a sign unreadable or unpleasant to look at. They also maintain
that the intent of the electronic sign industry is to establish a brightness level that is similar to a
traditional internally or externally lit sign. Recent observations of sign technicians calibrating
the Interstate 394 LED billboard noted that the brightness controls are not calibrated to specific
nit levels, but rather vary in proportion to a set maximum level, like a volume control dial on a
typical car radio.
To control the extent to which electronic signs are a distraction or the extent to which they are
readable, many local govenunents 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 vety little
in the way of ambient light levels, less than 500 nits may be appropriate. Other communities
have taken this farther, such as Lincoln, Nebraska, whose sign code incorporates a graph of
varying ambient light levels ranging from night time to a bright sunny day and all conditions
between those two extremes, and has correlating nit limitations for the various ambient light
levels.
Enforcement of these types of regulations is challenging as luminance of electronic signs is very
difficult to measure in the field. Typically, sign luminance is measured and calibrated in a
controlled factory setting using a spectral photometer to measure the light output. This
calibration setting is then used in conjunction with a photo cell to control the brightness of the
sign. The higher the ambient light levels, the brighter the sign. There are different nit thresholds
for various colors. White is most often used to set dimming levels because at a constant nit level,
white has the most intensity as perceived by the human eye.
Lincoln uses a light meter to conduct testing on electronic signs and found a wide range of
luminance levels. One small electronic sign had luminance levels of 13,000 nits. The process
that Lincoln uses to check luminance levels is to hold a luminance meter close to the face of the
sign so that it captures only the light emitted from the sign. They have not had any requests to
~26
measure the brightness of LED billboards, so the viability of using this approach on billboards
has not been explored.
In Seattle, sign hmrinance 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 lunrinance accordingly.
Both Mesa, Arizona and Lincoln, Nebraska have included a requir=ent for written certification
from the sign IIllUlufacturcr 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
roiniInuro, cannot exceed a certain established level of brightness:
At a roiniInum, it is important for cODlIIlunities to require all electronic signs to be equipped with
a diIIlIIler control. A requirement for both a d:iJmner control and a photo cell, which constantly
keeps track of ambient light conditious and adjusts sign brightness accordingly, is optimal.
Over time, the LEDs used in electronic signs have a tendency to lose some of their intensity, and
an owner may choose to have the sign adjusted and calibrated, which involves adjusting the level
of electrical current in a manner that affects the brightness of the sign. This occurs over the
course of two or three years. Having roaximmn 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 roles within their sign code and do not create opportunities for
electronic signs to be approved through conditional use permits or special usellennits. Some
cODlIIlunities 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 cODlIIlunities 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 cODlIIlunity 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
co!DIIlittee just for the purpose of electronic signs. Typically, sign regulations established in the
zoning ordinance would be reviewed in accordance with existing review and approval processes.
As with other development features, dynamic signage should be either prohibited, permitted, or
conditional depending upon the zoning district and/or the specific features of the sign as
established within the city's regulations (Le. size, specific location with respect to the adj acent
roadway, zoning district, proximity of sensitive uses). The recommended review process for
pemritted dynamic signs should be the same as procedures already in place for administrative
{}.27
=
review. For dynamic signs requiring a Conditionitl 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 iD. crashes. This is illustrated by the
1994 Wisconsin ~T study that examined crash rates before and after installation of an
electronic sim 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 advertisinl! sims and crash rates, but
have not established a causal relationship between the signs and cnish rates. Driving is a
complex task influenced by multiple fuctors. 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 wauld likely find that not all advertisinl!
signs cause distraction that would lead to crashes, but some signs in some situations are more
likely to contribute to crashes than others.
Overall, the literature review conducted for the purpose of this study identifies a relationship
between driver distraction and electronic outdoor advertisinl! devices. As indicated, driver
distraction is a significant factor in crashes. The purpose of dynamic signage is to attract the
attention of people in vehicles, so a natural conclusion from that knowledge is that drivers may
be distracted by them. Professional traffic engineering judgment concludes that driver
distraction generally contributes to a reduction in safe driving characteristics.
~28
o
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 sil!D. 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 govemments take a thorough approach to updating their ordinances to address this issue.
For example, an ordinance that addresses sign motion, but does not address brightness and
intensity levels may leave the door open for further controversy. This report seeks to identifY all
of the aspects of electronic outdoor advertisinl!: devices that are subject to regulation. It does not
specifically state what those regulations should be (e.g. the size of electronic si!!I1s), since these
are all things that policy makeIs and staff must take into careful consideration. Further, as driver
distraction and resulting influences on safety do not, in a practical sense, distinguish between on-
premise and off-premise signage, this distinction is not highlighted in the recommendations
below.
Regulatory Measures recommended for consideration
To properly address the issue of dynamic signage, it is recommended that the sign code. address
the following:
1. Identify specific areas where dynamic signs are prohibited. This would typically be done
by specifying certain zoning districts where they are not allowed under any
circumstances. If dynamic signs are to be allowed in specific areas, this could be done by
zoning district (only higher level commercial districts are recommended for
consideration) or by zoning overlay related to specific purposes (e.g. entertainment or
sports facility district) or to specific roadway types.
2. Determine the acceptable level of operational modes in conjunction' with such zoning
districts or overlays. The various levels include:
a. Static display only, with no transitions between messages,
b. Static display with fade or dissolve transitions, or transitions that do not have the
effect of moving text or images,
c. Static display with scrolling, traveling, spinning, zooming in, or similar special
effects that have the appearance of movement, animation, or changing in size, or get
revealed sequentially rather than all at once (e.g. letters dropping into place, etc.), and
i29
=
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 adverti,sing, these video
images may be seen as a form of entertainment, and people typically like to see an
entertaining message through to the end.
Differentiate between zoning districts where dynamic signs are permitted by right, and
zoning districts, overlay districts, or spccial districts where they should only he allowed
through the l!Pproval of a Conditional Use Permit. A CUP would involve public
notification and review and approval by the Planning Commission. Other options would
include a design review board or other dispute resolution process.
5. Consider the establishment of minimum distance requirements between electronic
outdoor advertising devices in relation to the zoning district or roadway context in which
the signs are allowed.
6. Consider size limitations on dynamic signs for zoning districts where they are allowed.
This may vary from one district to another.
7. Consider if dynamic signs are allowed independently, or if they must be incorporated into
the body of another sign, and therefore become a limited percentage of the overall sign
face.
8. Establish a requirement for that all dynamic signs that emit light be equipped with
mechanisms that allow brightness to be set at specific nit levels and respond accurately to
changing light conditions. The City must establish the authority to disable or turn the
device off if it malfunctions in a manner that creates excessive glare or intensity that
causes visual interference or blind spots, and require that the device remain inopeIllhle
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 b~nn;ng 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.
lO. 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 ofMinnetonka issues and may not be suffICient to
address concerns in other communities**
APPENDICES
A32
PRELThl!INARY 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
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 .- Cnrrent Sil!Jl 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 sigu face. Basic levels of technology present letters or numbers in a single color
of light, such as "time and temperature" signs or gas pricing signs. Many of these signs can
present longer images in a scrolling fashion, or can provide simple animations.
Recent advances have introduced a variety of technologies to the outdoor advertising arena. The
largest impact has been made with LED signs which offer an inexpensive yet powerful approach
that combines full motion, brilliant colors and a readable display. Other technologies are in
development, including "digital ink" signs that offer a changeable medium on a surface that
looks like a normal vinyl billboard. These signs manipulate ink on the surface, allowing for a
dynamic presentation of images without being internally illuminated.
The various sign technologies are referenced by a wide array of terms: "changeable message
signs," "electronic billboards," "animated signs." In general, this report focuses on the broad
range of signage types which are capable of displaying multiple images through electronic
manipulation, which we will refer to as "dynamic" signing. Reference to specific signsge types
is made when necessary to discussion of specific issues (e.g. the brightness of LED signage).
J\.~4
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF 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**
Appendix B
Outdoor Advertising Sign Brightness Defmitions
A35
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA .
Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop
**Prelimillary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to
address concerns in other communities**
Annendix B - Outdoor Advertising Sh!ll 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.
llluminance: The amount of light that is incident to the surface of an object. This is the
method for describing ambient light levels or the amount of light that is projected onto a
front-lit sign. This parameter is typically measured in lux (footcandles x meters). For the
purposes of dimming, illuminance is discussed to describe the ambient light that hits the
photocell.
Luminance: The amount of light that emanates from an internally 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 (DMS) With NTCIP Requirements." Note that these standards
were prepared for message signs deployed within the roadway right-of-way and should not
be taken as recommended luminance levels for advertising signs. Table A-I provides a
simplified version of the NEMA TS-4 standard for the color white.
~6
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR 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**
TableA-] - Luminance Standards
Ambient
Light
(lux)
40,000 Sunlight
10,000 Cloudy
4,000 Overcast
400 SunrisdSunscl
40 Candlelight
less than 4 Moonlight
Source: NEMA TS-4 (2005)
Apprmcimate
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 requite far less resolntion than print advertisements. For example, Clear
Channel's LED "Digital Outdoor Network" LED bulletin-size (14' x 48') billboards require
dimensions of only 208 pixels high by 720 pixels wide. If this image were to be printed at
300 dots per 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 precorrfigured settings. As ambient light
conditions darken, the photocell senses the decrease and lowers the light output of the sign.
Some sign manufacturers do not incorporate photocells in their electronic signs.
Electronic billboard dimming can also be controlled by scheduled dimming according to time
of day or manual dimming. On-premise signs may use any of these methods, but most, if not
aU, 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.
Aj!7
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
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 Advertisine Device Visual Performance Definitions
COllSpicuitv
Conspicuity is the property that related to the contrast between a sign and its background and
its ability to stand out from its surroundings. This is a subjective property that depends on
many factors of both the environment and the viewer.
Contrast
Contrast is the property that defines the relationship between the brightness of the brightest
color possible to the darkest color possible on a sign. In times when ambient conditions are
very bright, such as a sunny day, the darkest color may still be very bright due to the sun's
reflection off the sign. In these cases, the lighter colored areas of the billboard's image must
be much brighter than the contrasting dark areas.
Legibilitv
The ability of the driver to read a sign is related to its legibility. Large, legible text allows
the driver to reaci the billboard from varying distances and focus on the driving task.
Conversely, with sma11 teKt 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 eKposed 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 of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to
address concerns in other communities**
Frequencv of Change
The frequency of change is determined by the interval of time between sign image changes.
TIle 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 display 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 microphone system that identifies the radio stations passing drivers are
listening to and displays a specific message for that station.
A,~O
I B. Wallace, "Ddver Distraction by advertising: genuine dsk or urban myth?" Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156,2003.
2 J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations iu the Use of Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHWA-RD-BO-051," Washington, D.C., 1980.
3 AR. Lauer and J.C. Mcmonagle, "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; Califomia Roadside Council, Report CRC No. 165, 1961.
5 S. Weiner. "Review of report." Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, Envirorunental Design and Control
Division, August 1973.
6 J. Wachtel, and R Netherton. "Safety and Envirorunental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHWA-RD-80-051," Washington, D.C., 1980.
7 D. Crundall et aI., "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.
9 A. Smiley et aI., "Impact of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Patterns. Transportation Research Record, 2004.
10 G. Wachlel, The Veridian Group, "Video Signs in Seattle - Final Report." 2001.
II J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Enviromnental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signage. RepOlt No. FHW A.RD-BO-051," Washington, D.C., 1980.
12 C. L. Dndek et aI., "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 Ddver Distraction Forum: Summary and Proceedings," <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/
nrd-13/FinallnternetForumReport.pdf>, accessed on Fehrumy 14,2007.
I4"Report ofthe Road Safety Connnittee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction," Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Victoria,
Australia, 2006, p. 11 O.
15 A. W. Johnston and B.L. Cole, "Investigatious of Distraction By Irrelevant Information," Australian Road Research
Board,1976.
16 S.G. Klauer et aI., "Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the lOO-Car Naturalistic
Driving Study Data," National Highway Trame Safety Administration, 2006.
17 Driver Inattention Is A Major Factor In Serious Traffic Crashes," <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/
outreachltraftechlTT243,htm>, accessed on February 14, 2007.
" J. Wang, "Role of Ddver 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.
19 University ofNOlth Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, "The Roie of Driver Distraction in Traffic
Crashes/l2001.
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. Paul, Minnesota, 2003.
21 "Decision of the Outdoor Advertising Board in the Mailer of John Donnelly & Sons, Permltee, Telespot of New England,
Inc., Iniervenor, and Department of Public Works, Intervenor, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260 as Amended," The
Commouwealth of Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Division, 1976.
22 Wisconsin Departmeut of Transportation (1994). Milwaukee County Stadium Vmiable Message Sign Study. WiBconsin,
USA: Intemal Report, Wiscousin Department of Transportation.
23 T. Szymkowski, University of Wisconsin, Madisou, Interviewed on February 20,2007.
24 Federal Highway Administration, "Research Review of Poteutial Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention and Distraction," 2001.
25 G. Davis, FHW A Office of Safety Research and Development, Interviewed on February 23, 2007.
2<i CTC & Associates LLC, "Electronic Billboards and Highway Safety, <''http://www.dot.wisconsin,gov/library/
researchldocs/tsrs/tsrelectronicbillboards.pdf.>, accessed ou February 14,2007.
A41
27 Federal Highway Administration, "Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention!lIld Distraction," 2001.
2Il "Report oflhe Road Safety Committee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction," Parliament of Vlctoria, Australia,
Victoria, Australia, 2006.
29 D. Mandelker, A. Bertucci and W. Ewald. "Street Graphics and the Law," AJ'A Planning Advisory Service, 2004, pp. 51-
55.
A42
measure the brightness of LED billboards, so the viability of using this approach on billboards
has not been explored.
In Seattle, sign luminance was found too difficnlt 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
manipnlation by password protected software or other method approved by the appropriate city
official. This language appears to offer the advantage of ensuring that electronic signs, at a
minimum, cannot exceed a certain established level of brightness.
At a minimum, it is important for communities to require all electronic signs to be equipped with
a dimmer control. A requirement for both a dimmer control and a photo cell, which constantly
keeps track of ambient light conditions and adjusts sign brightness accordingly, is optimal.
Over time, the LEDs used in electronic signs have a tendency to lose some oftheir 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. TIllS 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 opportuuities for
electronic signs to be approved through conditional use permits or special use permits. Some
communities with special overlay districts, or areas that are oriented toward entertainment and
night life, have established a review process for electronic signs, or for various functions of
electronic signs such as animation and video.
Other communities take the opposite approach, where they allow electronic signs with no
controls whatsoever, except in certain special areas, such as a historic overlay district, or a
historic downtown district, where the signs are prohibited. Each community needs to tailor their
application of electronic signs to meet their needs.
As of the writing of this report, no ordinances have been discovered that have a special review
committee just for the purpose of electronic signs. Typically, sign regulations established in the
zoning ordinance would be reviewed in accordance with existing review and approval processes.
As with other development features, dynamic signage should be either prohibited, permitted, or
conditional depending upon the zoning district and/or the specific features of the sign as
established within the city's regulations (I.e. size, specific location with respect to the adjacent
roadway, zoning district, proximity of sensitive uses). The recommended review process for
permitted dynamic signs should be the same as procedures already in place for administrative
f!t27
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 ofthe 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 Iilcely 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 careftilly studied fue 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 fuat 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 attmction outside
fue right-of-way, possibly making it a source of driver distraction. Nevertheless, the actual
change in crash rates influenced by fue presence of any specific device has not been quantified in
a manner that fully isolates fue 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 fuat electronic signs be viewed
as a form of driver distmction and a public safety issue. Therefore, fue ordinance
recommendations identified here should be considered. These recommendations should be
reviewed in the future as additional research becomes available.
With respect to regn1atory measures for electronic outdoor advertising signs, it is important that
local governments take a fuorough approach to updating fueir ordinances to address this issue.
For example, an ordinance that addresses sign motion, but does not address brightness and
intensity levels may leave fue door open for further controversy. This report seeks to identify all
of fue aspects of electronic outdoor advertising devices that are subject to regulation. It does not
specifically state what those regulations should be (e.g. the size of electronic signs), since these
are all things fuat policy makers and staff must take into careful considemtion. Further, as driver
distmction 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 fue 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 fuey are not allowed under any
circumstances. If dynamic signs are to be allowed in specific areas, this could be done by
zoning district (only higher level commercial districts are recommended for
consideration) or by zoning overlay related to specific purposes (e.g. entertainment or
sports facility district) or to specific roadway types.
2. Determine fue 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 wifu scrolling, traveling, spinning, zooming in, or similar special
effects fuat have the appearance of movement, animation, or changing in size, or get
revealed sequentially rather than all at once (e.g. letters dropping into place, etc.), and
~29
d. Full animation and video.
3. If one of the forms of static display is identified as the preferred operational mode, a
minimum display time should be established. This display time should correspond to the
operation roadway speed (rather than posted speed limit), allowing at most one image
transition during the time that the sign if visible to a driver traveling at the operational
speed.
If a shorter minimum display time is considered, the effects of message sequencing
should be considered. Wait intervals of more than 1-2 seconds between sequenced
messages have the potential to become more of a distraction as viewers wait impatiently
for the next screen, in an effort to view the complete message.
4. If the community wishes to accommodate animation or video in some or all locations
where dynamic are permitted, a minimum and maximum duration of a video image
should be established. The purpose for establishing a time limit is to ensure that the
message is conveyed in a short, concise time frame that does not cause slowing of traffic
to allow drivers to see the entire message. Given the creativity of advertising, these video
images may be seen as a form of entertainment, and people typically like to see an
entertaining message through to the end.
Differentiate between zoning districts where dynamic signs are permitted by right, and
zoning districts, overlay districts, or special districts where they should only be allowed
through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A CUP would involve public
notification and review and approval by the Planning Commission. Other options would
include a design review board or other dispute resolution process.
5. Consider the establishment of minimum distance requirements between electronic
outdoor advertising devices in relation to the zoning district or roadway context in which
the signs are allowed.
6. Consider size limitations on dynamic signs for zoning districts where they are allowed.
This may vary from one district to another.
7. Consider if dynamic signs are allowed independently, or if they must be incorporated into
the body of another sign, and therefore become a limited percentage of the overall sign
face.
8. Establish a requirement for that all dynamic signs that emit light be equipped with
mechanisms that allow brightness to be set at specific nit levels and respond accurately to
changing light conditions. The City must establish the authority to disable or turn the
device off if it malfunctions in a manner that creates excessive glare or intensity that
causes visual interference or blind spots, and require that the device remain inoperable
until such time that the owner demonstrates to the appropriate city official that the device
is in satisfactory working condition. If such technology is not available, consideration
should be give to banning dynamic signs that emit light until such time as the technology
allows brightness levels to be precisely controlled.
~30