Loading...
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