Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packet
4 ROSEMOUNT AGENDA City Council Special Work Session Wednesday, November 7, 2007 CITY COUNCIL Immediately following regular meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION A. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment City of Rosemount, 07-13-TA B. 2008 Budget 3. UPDATES 4. ADJOURNMENT City Council work sessions are held for Council and staff to discuss items for future Council agendas. Comments from the public during work sessions are not generally solicited. SITE MAP PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34-03210-010-31 CONTRACT PURCHASER: WILLIAM ARLO NORDVIK COMMON NAME: RICK'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR 24282 ESSEX FARMINGTON MN 55024 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15280 ROBERT TRL S ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 PAYABLE 2007 TAXES NET TAX: 15,369,44 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: 0,00 TOTAL TAX 8 SA: 18,369.44 PAYABLE 2008 ASMNT USAGE:COMMERCIAL-PREFERRED NOTE: Dimensionsroundedtonearestfoot. Copyright 2007, Dakota County - 20W ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2008) LAND: 593,800 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES BUILDING: 62,900 ROAD EASEMENTS) TOTAL: 656,700 148,449 SO FT SCHOOL DISTRICT: 196 3.41 ACRES LOCATION: SEIA4 NW1/4 SECTION 32-115-19 PAYABLE 2008 HOMESTEAD STATUS: NON HOMESTEAD WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER LAST QUALIFIED SALE: DATE: AMOUNT: This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and slate offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. 2007 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2008) TYPE WHSE,STRG WHSE,STRG QUONSET BD YEAR BUILT 1961 1981 1961 ARCH/STYLE FOUNDATION SO FTNOT APPL NOT APPL NOTAPPL FINISHED SO FT 7137 7200 6000 BEDROOMS 0 0 0 BATHS 1 2 0 FRAME D-WOOD D-WOOD D-WOOD GARAGE SO FT 0 0 0 OTHER GARAGE MISC BLDG PLAT NAME: SECTION 32 TWN 115 RANGE 19 N TAX DESCRIPTION: PT OF NW 114 LYING BETW W RAW RR+E R/W STH -3+N OF LINE COM 1381 FT S + 904.3 FT W OF NE CDR S 23D 30M W ON RR RAN 552 FT TO BEG OF LINE N 66D 30M W 342 FT TO BE RAV HGWY+THERE TERM SUBJ TO DRIVEWAY ESMNT 003360 3211519 Map Date: November 7, 2007 Parcels Updated: 11/1/2007 Aerial Photography: 2003 (3) IN ; � 1� s ti 1 ► Ila a . a P 5 3� Zweber,Eric From: Gregory Ewig [Gregory.Ewig@so.mnscu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:47 PM To: Zweber, Eric Cc: Lindquist,Kim; Randy Anderson Subject: Letter of credit request Eric: Nice talking to you this afternoon. As a recap, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, (DCTC being a member) as an entity of the state, is not able to provide a letter of credit for the grading work, as it violates our statutory and constitutional prohibition regarding private indebtedness and prepayment (since the collateral would be out of our control before the work is completed). For a more thoroughdiscussion about our ability (or lack thereof) in offering a LOC. I can connect your city attorney with the attorney general's office for the legal framework we rely on for our position. As I also mentioned, our system campuses do their best is to work within the parameters of municipal ordinances related to land use, and quite successfully. (However, as a state entity, we are generally not bound by municipal zoning and most land -use ordinances.) It is our preference to work with the city in this matter, and would appreciate a timely resolution to this issue, preferably before the end of the week. Greg Gregory Ewig Director of Real Estate Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Real Estate Services 350 Wells Fargo Place 30 E. 7th Street St. Paul MN 55101-4946 phone: 651.296.3852 fax: 651.296.0318 I was seldom able to see an opportunity until it had ceased to be one. - Mark Twain, Autobiography 1 z C 0 z a='D E. a a Z a F a ? °a n T c n �m� c'm= oMz a'a� tDo� CD .D ❑ CD v CO CD v 'D '� o o r, CD T c p w tD cWo M CD ty Z1 QWc aWc c c Z 1 r� :. rc i ray. rCD ao. 0 ID tG O .p+ tD to N .pi t0 O .p. fG .p. CDD W t1 y U N 0 3 0 N 0 J U N J N J W N U1toCD N W W J OIJ 0) 0,WtJJi0) 01 O � I�01 jlo � 0 [M4 O IO O �O O OIOD RRR O O O O O O � O O cD O C C N" 00 m N O tD W W VO O W N O W O J ON y m m O �? I0 00 f�A IA O �A IA 00 lO OIt00 C M 1 A O O' tD U1 01 A J m A J O O W J N 01 W N N N co W Ut A t0 m A (fl (P [OJT f00 W A -(00 G j tD 0) W 0 CDW co 01 tp A A o to O o 0 p N J v 0 - I j 0 J J 00 J J O O O O O O O 0 <CD O (D 0 0 JU1 W A CO [D A Ut O Cti U W <O W N C O AOWco I .NAB O A W W tWOA N A -n 3 �ri 0 R-4 Jo �-4 j00 �-4 -4 J JO O OO O O O O (D (D N a p 10- to o �o 0 0 0 1(1 0 1-0w 0 0 �o 0 olt�a p < NCD 3 C N� J W-' VI� Oo W WI1"a � 0 �O 10) OO O O OIW 00 � 0 0l �10010) �t�A 0 o0o 000 oCD �toYoCD CD CD 01O o 1010 0 10 0 JOD to o 1-4 to o� 3 10 1-4 O ICn � O N 1010 10100 �0100 tloIOO IO OOJ v O O O 0 D J O J N O v � J 0 v v O 6Q, f RosEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session Date: November 7. 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM: 07-13-TA Sign Ordinance Text Amendment AGENDA SECTION: City of Rosemount Work Session PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, Planner & Kim Lindquist, AGENDA NO. 2.1k_ Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 10-23-07, 09-25-07, 08-28-07, 04-24-07 and 03-13-07 PC Minutes, League of Minnesota Cities Memo - Regulating Dynamic Signs, Letter Mr. ScottAskow and Sign Information APPROVED BY: from the United States Sign Council, Pictures of Electronic Signs In Rosemount, Draft Text Amendment Ordinance, RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction Regarding Dynamic Signs BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting on October 23, the Commission recommended approval of the sign ordinance amendment and also requested that staff provide additional amendments relating to electronic signs by the first meeting in January. This request was prompted by a business owner and a sign manufacturer who had attended the public hearing requesting the ability to display dynamic electronic signs in the City. The sign ordinance amendment recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is attached for the Council's information but is not the main subject of this worksession discussion. The initial purpose of the amendment was to update the ordinance in the areas of pern fitting procedure, First Amendment free speech and temporary signs. Staff also took the opportunity to restructure portions of the ordinance so it was clearer and easier to find specific regulations. Staff intends to reevaluate the various zoning districts' sign regulations (i.e. type, size, height, setback, etc.) as part of a more extensive review of the sign ordinance at a future time. Staff had been working on the draft ordinance since March when discussion about slight modifications to the sign ordinance was first brought to the Planning Commission. Because there was no immediate need, staff worked on the draft over the summer and attended a Chamber event to present the changes. Staff also contacted the Discover Rosemount group and asked to meet with them, which was declined. In August, the public hearing was held on the draft ordinance and there was no one in attendance. Staff requested a continuance in order to obtain more publicity on the subject and contacted the local papers, some of which published articles regarding the sign ordinance. In September, the public hearing was again opened and six residents spoke. Between the August and September meetings there was an incident regarding the placement of a temporary electronic sign at the Rosemount Storage property. A sign permit had been issued for the temporary sign; however, the permit did not indicate that it was for an electronic flashing sign. Staff has had previous conversations with the sign company representative that these signs are not currently permitted in the City. The sign company and the Rosemount Storage representatives were two of the people who spoke at the meeting, requesting modifications to the sign ordinance to deal with electronic flashing, or dynamic signs. In October, staff again brought the ordinance to the Commission with some additional background on electronic and temporary signs. The ordinance proposal was not modified to address dynamic signs. Staff continued to support the text amendment and indicated that review of electronic signs would be added to the list of work tasks to be completed at an unspecified time. Staff did not suggest a deadline for this further review because of other substantive projects that the staff is currently working on, including the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Greening Initiative, and Downtown Redevelopment. Dynamic Signs Staff is requesting direction from Council Members on two issues tonight. One is their position on the use of dynamic electronic signs. The second question is where does addressing this issue fall into the priorities of the Council given the other tasks currently being undertaken by the Department. The City currently restricts electronic changeable copy to time and temp signs and to changeable copy in the Public Institutional zoning district. Changable electronic signs axe also permitted for gas station display, similar to the Holiday station on Hwy 42. There are a variety of issues associated with permitting dynamic signs. With the change in technology there are a variety of electronic signs available, which raise additional concerns beyond the more limited varieties of the past. The current ordinance refers to scrolling or flashing signs and doesn't address dynamic signs. There has been a lot of discussion in Minnesota and some court action relating to billboard dynamic signs. This summer the League of Cities sent out information regarding dynamic signs for communities after conducting a study regarding the potential impacts of the signs upon traffic safety. The memo is enclosed for the Council's information. While there are issues such as size, location, intensity, duration of image, and motion of image, there is also the question as to whether the City wants to allow additional signage opportunities at all, beyond what is currently permitted. In staffs quick survey, several communities prohibit some types of dynamic signs. Others are taking the issue under advisement, although it is not clear if this means wholesale changes or modifications relating to billboards, which has been the primary area of conversation by communities. The following is the status of community ordinances: Survey of Metropolitan Cities Regarding Dynamic Si n Regulations City Status Apple Valley Permitted — New ordinance developed in 2006 created standards Blaine Permitted — Recent ordinance created standards Bloomington Permitted — Recent ordinance created standards Brooklyn Park Permitted — Message may not change more than once every six (6) hours except for time and temperature Burnsville Permitted — Recent ordinance created standards Champlin Cottage Grove Undefined - Currently studying issue to more clearly define regulations K, Edina Permitted — Message may not change more than once an hour except for time and temperature Eagan Permitted — New ordinance developed this year based on LMC info and SRF stud Falcon Heights Prohibited — No Plans to change ordinance Lakeville Prohibited — Standards same as Rosemount's existing standards Maple Grove Prohibited — No plans to change ordinance Minnetonka Permitted — New ordinance developed this year based on LMC info and SRF stud New Brighton Undefined — Currently under moratorium and developing standards Oakdale Undefined — Currently under moratorium and developing standards Richfield Prohibited — Standards same as Rosemount's existing standards. Currently considering adoption of the Minnetonka ordinance. St. Louis Park Permitted — Currently studying issue to more clearly define regulations St. Paul Park Permitted - Conditional use permit Stillwater Permitted — Limited to Commercial districts West St. Paul Permitted - Conditional use permit. Limited to commercial districts Woodbury Permitted — Electronic ok. No flashing, scrolling or motion signs Presently, staff is asking the Council if they would want to increase the amount of moving, blinking, flashing or changing electronic signs in the City. Presently there are very few signs of that nature present, based upon the regulations set forth in the ordinance. Changing the ordinance to introduce more dynamic signs would be a policy change from the current standard. While the position has been taken by some respondents that the City needs to change its ordinance to be current with technology, the question is really more of community values and aesthetics. Does the Council believe that these types of dynamic signs are preferable to the current condition and would be complementary to the other economic development goals of the community? Timing Should the Council decide that they would like to look more closely at the variety of electronic signs that are available and potentially allow some, staff would like to obtain direction from the Council as to the priority of this amendment. Over the last year there have been several ordinance issues that have arisen that need to be reviewed when time permits. These amendments run the gamut from small items such as regulation of metal roofs to larger issues such as performance standards for the public institutional zoning district. There are also large projects that planning staff is working on with definite deadlines, like the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Before committing to a deadline for a major review of the electronic sign issue, the Department wants to be assured that its work priorities are aligned with the Council's. To assist as background for the discussion, below is the information that was provided to the Planning Commission in October when this issue was discussed: Discussion of Ordinance Amendment During the public hearing process for this amendment the Commission heard from six residents; three with comments about temporary sign standards and three with comments about electronic signs. It is true that the current amendment addresses both of these issues; however, the changes are not substantive and rather are related to formatting in the ordinance. For example, with electronic signs the current proposal 91 re-establishes the same regulations as the current ordinance although where the standards are found and in the manner they are written may vary from the current text. The main change with temporary signs is the increase in permit duration from ten (10) to fourteen (14) days per permit and the prohibition of portable changeable copy signs in the C-2, Downtown Commercial District. The amendment proposed standards for electronic signs would allow the same opportunities for electronic signage that currently exists in Rosemount. Currently, Rosemount has five electronic signs. Pictures of these signs are attached for your reference. Of the five, two are institutional signs located at the Dakota County Technical College and the Rosemount Community Center. The remaining three are commercial, two at banks and one at the Holiday gas station at the corner of County Road 42 and Chippendale Avenue. Under the proposed standards, these same types of signs would continue to be allowed (see below). 1 Electronic Time and Temperature sign. An area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet within a freestanding or wall sign shall be allowed for display, subject to the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the sign is located. 2 Gasoline Signs. An area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet within a freestanding sign shall be allowed for continuous display (no flashing, scrolling or other animation) of electronic or non- electronic changeable copy identifying current fuel prices in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section 239.751 3 Electronic Changeable Copy Sign. One freestanding electronic changeable copy sign shall be allowed on properties in the PI - Public and Institutional District for display of public, noncommercial messages, subject to the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the sign is located. A survey of other metropolitan area cities found that many cities have either developed or are in the process of studying and creating dynamic sign standards. The table at the end of this report lists result of this survey. Developing Dynamic (Electronic) Sign Regulations Staffs research on this issue finds that the proliferation of electronic signs is a growing issue for many communities due to improved technology, lower costs and the potential marketing benefits of these signs. The existing sign ordinance and the proposed amendment maintain the City's existing policy regarding electronic signs to the three examples listed above. Staff recommends the City begin to study this issue and determine the community's values and preferences about this new technology. Information about the legal basis for this type of regulation, regulation options and factors to consider when developing an ordinance is provided in the attachment. In July of this year, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) issued a memo regarding the regulation of dynamic signs (see attached). The term "dynamic sign" is a universal term used to describe all displays that have changing messages, regardless of the means used to change the display. According to the LMC, local governments have the authority and responsibility to regulate such signs. The LMC further contends that there is no "right" way to regulate these types of sign because each community has different values and preferences. Because the regulation of signs involves First Amendment free speech issues, courts hold sign regulations to a higher standard than other land use regulations. Cities can regulate signs in general and dynamic sign specifically, as long as those regulations are reasonable and do not regulate the content of the sign. 0 The Leagues suggests that there are at least four options for cities when regulating dynamic signs, including: 1. Complete or near -complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all. 2. Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations. 3. Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in a downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods. 4. Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for removal of non -conforming static signs. Should the city elect to permit dynamic signs with some regulation, the League's memo and SRF study suggest there are at least six specific components to consider, including: 1. Duration of messages/ speed of changeover. 2. Motion, animation, and video. 3. Brightness. 4. Sign placement and spacing 5. Size of signs. 6. Text size and legibility. Other factors staff recommends considering include: the community's values and preference relating to introducing this new technology into Rosemount's "small town feel," type of sign (building and/or ground), proportion of sign that is dynamic and location (setback). The League's memo along with a study conducted by SRF Consulting served as the basis for the City of Minnetonka's dynamic sign ordinance. The City of Eagan also used this information to study their community and develop the ordinance they approved in October. The SFR study concluded that dynamic signs can distract dtiveers and therefore affect public safety. RECOMMENDATION Provide staff direction. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2007 Old Business: 6.a. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment (07-13-TA). Planner Lindahl presented this item. This is a continuation of the discussion from the September 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of this item by the City Council. If the Commission is concerned about the language relating to electronic signs as proposed, it is recommended the draft ordinance be stripped of those changes to allow the other text amendments to proceed. Staff would add electronic signage to the list of ordinance amendments that are to be explored by staff and the Commission as time permits. Mr. Lindahl showed the Commission photographs of examples of electronic reader boards currently in the City and other examples of signs in different parts of the country showing the technology. Commissioner Schultz stated she recently went to Rosemount Storage to see a demonstration of their electronic reader board sign by Mr. Jim Hamilton. She stated now seeing an example of the sign at the Dakota County Technical College, she asked how that sign differs from the sign Rosemount Storage is prohibited from using. She further stated that she thinks the Commission should look at signs that could help the local businesses and she feels she cannot approve the amendment as it is. Chairperson Messner stated the way the ordinance was worded in the past allowed electronic reader signs in public and institutional districts. He stated his concern with allowing that type of signs in other locations, such as across from residences. Chairperson Messner further stated that if these types of signs are allowed, the Commission will need to look at where the signs will be allowed in addition to the type, size, color, etc. and he stated his concern with delaying the entire ordinance because of this one issue. He stated his preference to move on with the ordinance amendment at this time but then Commission Schultz could recommend a time frame to readdress the issue of electronic reader boards. Commissioner Schultz stated she could possibly agree with approving the item at this tune but that she would want the issue revisited sooner rather than later to discuss electronic reader boards in more detail. Mr. Lindahl stated the original intent of this item was to rearrange the ordinance and clarify its purpose and that we may be doing the public a disservice of not informing them of how much discussion is taking place on electronic reader boards. However, if the Commission would like to make the electronic reader board issue a priority, staff would begin to work on it. Senior Planner Zweber shared his concern that the comprehensive plan process needs to be completed with the next couple of months and while he appreciates Commissioner Schultz's to handle all of the details at once, it may not be an option due to time constraints on the Commission's schedule. He further stated that the ordinance changes with respect to temporary signs have been promised to business owners and should be completed now. Commissioner Schultz stated that the electronic reader board signs are prohibited in the ordinance on Page 14 and she stated she does not feel that it's right to say they are prohibited. Mr. Lindahl responded that the content of the standards in the current ordinance does not address any new changes. Chairperson Messner asked about how the ordinance addresses the definitions of sign reader boards and video reader boards. Mr. Lindahl stated that in the beginning of the ordinance, it states that anything that is not specifically allowed is then prohibited. The existing ordinance addresses electronic reader signs in several sections so staff attempted to relocate the language in one section so it would be easier to understand. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff kept the original intent of the ordinance and listed what was originally prohibited. Chairperson Messner invited the public to speak restricting comments on the two major issues currently being discussed: electronic reader signs or temporary signs. Kathy Konecky, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached the Commission. She stated she called the City of Apple Valley regarding their policy on temporary signs and was informed that they require a permit but do not charge any fees for temporary signs. She stated that Rosemount businesses are smaller than Apple Valley businesses and they cannot afford to pay for sign permits. She stated she felt that Rosemount businesses should not have to pay for signs if Apple Valley businesses do not have to. Ms. Klonecky further stated she had hoped the Commission would change their minds after she testified at last month's meeting. She stated she has talked to some Rosemount businesses and was informed that some businesses took down their signs because they did not want to pay to have them up. Ms. Klonecky stated that according to First Amendment rights, if you have private property, you should have the right to put up a temporary banner without having to pay for it. Chairperson Messner clarified to Ms. Klonecky that the Planning Commission is not allowed to make recommendations on permit fees or fee structure and stated that is only within the City Council's jurisdiction. Ms. Klonecky then replied she felt the Commission should vote no against the ordinance. Aside from the fee, Ms. Klonecky stated that businesses should be able to put up signs as they wish like they did before when the ordinance wasn't enforced. She further stated that when the law was relaxed and no one was enforcing it, businesses were fine and no one did anything wrong. She stated she feels Rosemount business owners are smart and conservative and will not put up any electronic reader boards that are big like billboards and that the Commission should talk to business owners to see what they want. Mr. Scott Askew, owner of Rosemount Storage, approached the Commission and thanked them for the opportunity to speak even after the public hearing was closed. He directed the Commissioner's attention to the City's "Spirt of Pride and Progress" motto and stated that "progress" is the key word. He stated that electronic reader boards have several advantages including unlimited number of messages, computer control, display of business communications along with public service information, and is the most cost effective form of advertising other than word of mouth. Mr. Askew read several online testimonials of businesses that use electronic reader boards for advertising. Mr. Askew further stated that Rosemount Storage can survive for another 15 months on their current capital if their business does not grow and that they would need to grow 3-5% a month to make it. He thanked Commissioner Schultz for coming to his business to see the sign they would like to use and invited the other commissioners to come see it as well. Mr. Askew asked the Commission not to ban electronic reader boards, but to govern them. He stated his fear that if the Commission passed the ordinance amendment, the issue will not be revisited and requested the Commission table the item to allow the presentation of more information or at a minimum, allow electronic reader signs under the temporary sign section. Mr. Tun Judy, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached the Commission and stated he spoke at the last meeting and would like to reiterate that signs are very important to small businesses and restricting them does them no service. He stated the City can govern the size and color, but to completely restrict the signs does the local businesses no service. Mr. Jim Hamilton, 15085 Derby Circle, approached the Commission and stated that one thing that concerned him was that businesses such as Rosemount Storage do not have time to wait until the Commission's schedule allows more discussion on the issue. He stated that if the City loses businesses out of the community, the City loses jobs. Mr. Hamilton further stated that if the Commission does not have time to discuss this item at a worksession to get more educated on the matter, it would be a mistake. Chairperson Messner invited discussion or questions from the Commissioners Commissioner Howell asked Mr. Lindahl where the section on ribbons and banners on Page 12 of the original ordinance get moved to in the amendment and Mr. Lindahl explained they were moved to the temporary sign standards on Page 14 and are also contained in the definitions of temporary signs. Mr. Lindahl clarified for the Commission that since this item has been on the agenda since March, there have been both comments that the item was moving too quickly and not fast enough. He explained that staff has tried to focus on the non -controversial items that needed to be addressed from a caselaw standpoint. However, he stated, the City is feeling the budget crunch as everyone else is and the changes to the temporary sign standards have made things easier and have allowed greater time periods for business owners. He stated that the Council reduced the fee and further explained that the reason for the fee is there has been a public policy of the Council that permit fees should be the responsibility of the owner, not the general taxpayers. Mr. Lindahl further stated that he agrees new issues may need to be addressed by the ordinance, but that staffs role is to address what it is currently in place. Commissioner Palda stated his agreement with Commissioner Schultz that is not comfortable with approving the ordinance amendment at this time. He stated he feels with the changing economy, the Commission should discuss things with business owners. Chairperson Messner stated he realizes that the signs with new technology are coming but that the Commission needs to look at the size, color and technology of the signs. He further stated his concern that if Commission acts on the item now, the issue regarding electronic reader boards may not be immediately addressed. He suggested the possibility of scheduling a worksession but noted that proper notices have not been given to the public and public involvement and feedback will be needed on this issue. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to be able to come up with a solution as in allowing an electronic reader board as a temporary sign. Mr. Hamilton stated that if the ordinance states that if a sign is not listed, then it's illegal, then that would mean the sign at the Bank should be illegal. He stated he feels the Commission needs to take the time to work this issue out Mr. Lindahl stated he did not currently have a building permit or the existing regulations at the time the Bank sign was construction, but explained that was not the issue in front of the Commission at this time. He stated the time issue has been raised and the matter presents a more complicated issue than just the present businesses. He stated his concern that the City is doing a misjustice to the community to go forward with the reader board issue at this time. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if there was some process Rosemount Storage could go through or some type of criteria developed, such as the variance approval process, to have a reader board approved against the current requirements. Mr. Lindahl stated that the quick answer in staffs opinion would be no and further explained the difference with a variance approval process. Commissioner Schultz then asked if there was a way that the language on Page 14 regarding prohibited signs could be changed to delete electronic signage. Mr. Lindahl explained that there is a prohibited sign section in the ordinance that should stay but that the content of that section is at the prerogative of the Commission. He explained that the underlined sections in the amendment are new and if the Commission agrees to move on without the reader board language, then that language can be stricken from the amendment, but the reader boards would still be prohibited. Mr. Lindahl stated however that a business owner can come in to the City and file a text amendment to amend the ordinance. Chairperson Messner stated his recommendation for business owners to file a text amendment which would allow the temporary sign language to be more specific to the individual need and it would be addressed on a more timely basis than in a worksession, public hearing and then approval. He further stated his preference to address the item currently before the Commission that doesn't change what is currently allowed, but encouraged Mr. Askew to purse the text amendment option available. Mr. Askew asked how timely a text amendment application is addressed and Mr. Lindahl explained the 60 and 120 day time rules. Chairperson Messner agreed that the Planning Commission and the City need to come up to speed on electronic reader board technology, but also stated that tonight's item needs to be acted on. MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve the attached sign ordinance amendment and direct staff regarding future sign ordinance amendments with the addition that standards having to do with electronic signs need to be addressed in the future. The Motion was not seconded. Motion was not approved. Commissioner Schultz stated she would like to re -address this motion but add some type of timing to it regarding the future sign ordinance amendments. Commissioner Howell asked Mr. Zweber about the comprehensive plan timeline. Mr. Zwebet stated that the Commission can choose a time frame for the motion and then it will go to the Council to approve. He further explained that the comprehensive plan timeline includes discussion in January, revisions in February, public hearing in March, and distribution for comments in April which leaves May as the next available month. Commissioner Palda asked if a provision could be added to the ordinance to allow reader boards on a case by case basis so they can be governed. Mr. Lindahl expressed his unease at putting the decision or governing in the hands of the current staff or Commissioners on staff at that time. There was further discussion and explanation from Mr. Lindahl on the text amendment application process that Mr. Askew could follow and the timeline involved. MOTION by Schultz to recommend the City Council approve the attached sign ordinance amendment and direct staff regarding future sign ordinance amendments regarding temporary signs and reader boards on or before the first regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting in April, 2008. Second by Howell. Ayes: 2. Nays: 2 - Messner, Palda. Motion was not approved. Commissioner Palda stated his objection was because of the businesses in Rosemount and he feels there should be something that should be addressed or allowed now with respect to the reader boards. Chairperson Messner stated the Commission has the option to push the item to the City Council on a 2-2 vote and asked Commissioner Palda if a shorter timeline would get his approval. Commissioner Palda stated this is a bigger issue than just the business owners present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Lindahl clarified that any business owner can come in tomorrow and file an application to move this issue to the front. Chairperson Messner stated that if any timeline is placed in the motion, he will not approve it. MOTION by Schultz to table the item until the next Planning Commission meeting on November 27, 2008. Second by Palda. Ayes: 2. Nays: 2 - Messner, Howell. Motion was not approved. Chairperson Messner then asked Commissioner Palda what kind of timeline he would like to see in the motion and Commissioner Palda responded with sooner than April. MOTION by Palda to recommend the City Council approve the attached sign ordinance amendment and direct staff regarding future sign ordinance amendments regarding temporary signs and reader boards on or before the first regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting in January, 2008. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 3. Nays: 1 — Messner. Motion was approved. As follow-up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before City Council for approval at the November 20, 2008, meeting. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 5.c. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment (07-13-TA). Planner Lindahl presented this item. This is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the regular Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2007. Staff recommends the Planning Commission resume the public hearing on this item and take any public comment before recommending approve of this item by the City Council. This public hearing is a continuation from the meeting on August 28, 2007. Commissioner Schultz questioned the difference between the recommended action and the conclusion and recommendation in the staff report. Mr. Lindahl clarified that the Commission needs to resume the public hearing, take any comment, and make a recommendation for approval to the City Council. The public hearing was resumed at 7:37p.m. Tun Judy, 15621 Cornell Trail, approached the Commission and stated he has been following the sign ordinance issue. He stated he feels the ordinance is unfair to small businesses that use banners and temporary signs as their only way to advertise their products. He stated that products and sales change quite frequently and limiting businesses to permits only three times a year is unfair to them. Mr. Judy further stated he would like to see more originality in the way the city does things. He stated the League of Minnesota Cities has a handbook that every city follows, but maybe the City of Rosemount could be a little looser in their practices. Kathy Klonecky, 15621 Cornell Trail, stated she saw the notice about this meeting in the Town Pages but she had to search for it and she did not see any article in the This Week newspaper. She stated there used to be banners on the walls of buildings so people could see what specials businesses had and all of a sudden the businesses were told they couldn't hang banners anymore. She stated this is a time -saving way for residents to be able to see the banners. Ms. Klonecky stated she has talked to businesses who say they are losing money because people are not stopping in as they used to when banners were allowed. Ms. Klonecky stated she has checked other city ordinances such as Apple Valley and they require permits but do not require fees. She feels it is unfair for Rosemount to require fees if Apple Valley doesn't. She stated that no one complained about the signs before this ordinance was resurrected this year. She quoted an article from the League of Minnesota Cities that stated their biggest concern with signage is with billboards. Ms. Klonecky stated the city ordinance should state that no billboards are allowed, no ripped or tattered signs, and the advertising should be placed on the business only, except for realtors who have to advertise open houses. She stated there should not be any fees or permits required. In talking with area businesses, she found that the businesses paid the fees and completed a form, but they did not receive a permit. There shouldn't be any favoritism between businesses and there shouldn't be time limits since busy people are not going to remember the time periods. In conclusion, Ms. Klonecky stated that small businesses should not be losing money due to an old law that doesn't work. Scott Askew, 13602 Dellwood Way, one of the owners of Rosemount Storage, east of City Hall approached the Commission. He stated one of the problems he has with the ordinance is the way it's written in that only changeable letter reader boards are allowed which are pretty much outdated. He stated Rosemount Storage installed an electronic reader board and within 12-16 hours of having it in operation, they received four calls as a result. Mr. Askew stated there are other businesses in Rosemount that have electronic reader boards, including the City. He is requesting the City not ban the electronic reader board altogether, but govern the way it's used. He stated the electronic reader board was a big investment for his business and will work to increase revenue if he's allowed to use it. Jim Hamilton, 15085 Derby Circle, sells electronic message centers and works with Scott Askew. He had recently gathered some information with Discover Rosemount regarding somebody who had a business in Rosemount and went out of business. That business owner wanted one of the signs Mr. Hamilton sells but couldn't because of the sign ordinance. Mr. Hamilton stated he has a lot of different styles of LED signs. He stated that Rosemount National has an electronic reader board and requests that other businesses in Rosemount have the same opportunity as the bank to advertise. He understands there needs to be some restrictions on outside signs and temporary signs, but he feels the ordinance should govern them, not prohibit them. He has more information if the Commission would be interested in seeing different types of signs. He provided the same information to the City of Cambridge on how to govern signs. He stated the city needs to be in the 21" century with the type of signs they are allowing businesses to have. Tom Piekarski, 14800 Dodd Blvd., approached the Commission. He explained his current situation with the City and the court action. He showed the Commission photographs of realtor and builder signs compared to his vegetable signs and stated the realtor and builder signs did not have permits issued. He requested the City to quit picking on the small businesses and start treating businesses equally. Jim Hamilton, 15085 Derby Circle, approached the Commission again and asked about the grandfathering of the bank's reader board and when the current sign ordinance was adopted. Mr. Lindahl stated that he believed the ordinance was last modified in 1997. Mr. Hamilton stated he seriously doubted the bank's reader board pre -dated 1997 and that allowing them to have the sign but not other businesses is unfair treatment. Ron Carlson, from Inver Grove Heights, and business owner in the City of Rosemount approached the Commission. He stated as part owner of Rosemount Market Square, he does not have a reader board but would like to have one. He feels they are a modern and effective tool for advertising. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the public hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:03p.m. Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if it was known when Mr. Askew was issued the permit what type of sign he was proposing and that it would not be allowed at a later date. Mr. Lindahl explained the process when Mr. Askew came in for a permit and stated he did not ask Mr. Askew if it was an electronic reader board and Mr. Askew did not say if it was or not. He further stated that the current process allows three days for staff to review the sign but he issued the permit at the counter that date to expedite things for Mr. Askew. Mr. Askew's sign vendor has spoken with staff on two different occasions and was aware of the city standards at the time the permit was issued. When staff realized the sign was an electronic reader board, staff tried to fix the problem. Chairperson Messner asked for clarification on the type of sign being discussed and where in the ordinance they are included. Mr. Lindahl pointed out the particular section and stated that the current ordinance prohibits this type of sign but that staff is attempting to clarify the types of signs in this text amendment. The text amendment is mainly adding specific, more modern terms to describe the types of signs that were already prohibited. The new ordinance allows a limited size in displaying prices of gasoline and allows an electronic reader board at the community center because it advertises community events, the time and the temperature. Commissioner Schultz commented that the reader board at the Community Center is great to have but also agreed with the audience that the City should try to help Rosemount grow with their local businesses. She suggested that the Commission research this issue more from a business person's viewpoint to hopefully come up with an alternative that is allowed by the ordinance or possibly relax the restrictions. Commissioner Palda agreed with Commissioner Schultz and stated that the City needs to be with the times with electronic reader boards, but they need to be governed. He stated that the City of Rosemount is going to continue to grow and the City needs to try to keep businesses here. He stated the signs should be allowed, but governed. Chairperson Messner asked about the standards of illumination. Mr. Lindahl stated there are standards for illumination. He stated that with the policy in place and the feedback staff has received from the Commission is to continue limiting electronic reader boards as in the current ordinance. Therefore, staff hasn't completed any research on size and illumination standards of electronic reader boards. Commissioner Schwartz suggested that perhaps Mr. Hamilton could provide more information to the Commission as in a demonstration of different types available. She stated she is not in favor of making Rosemount look like Las Vegas but understands that the Commission lacks information on which to base a decision. There was agreement among the Commissioners to obtain more information about electronic reader boards before making a decision. Mr. Lindahl suggested setting up a worksession schedule to discuss this item further. Chairperson Messner asked about the temporary sign usage and the current fees and requirements. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the process and stated the current fee is $10.00 which is to cover the minimum amount of staff time to issue the permit. The time period was increased from 10 to 14 days. Before a motion was made, Mr. Lindahl suggested the Commission table the item to the October meeting and then possibly table it again at that meeting, or schedule a worksession meeting. MOTION by Messner to table the sign ordinance amendment item to the October 23, 2007, meeting. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 5.b. 07-13-TA Sign Ordinance Text Amendment. Planner Lindahl presented this item. Recently, staff noticed that the City's existing sign ordinance needed updating in three areas: general purpose and permitting procedures, free speech, and temporary sign standards. At meetings on March 13`h and April 24`h of this year, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the temporary sign performance standards and briefly discussed the purpose and permitting procedure as well as the free speech issues. Since the last meeting, staff has been working with the City Attorney and relying on the League of Minnesota Cities to update the City's Sign Ordinance as it relates to theses three issues. In addition; staff presented the temporary sign permit standards and discussed the proposed petmitting and free speech changes to the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce during their June 12 meeting. It was noted that Discover Rosemount declined an offer to make the same presentation. The amended ordinance contains changes related to these issues. Staff intends to continue working on the sign ordinance and reevaluate the various zoning districts sign regulations. However, it was felt that issues relating to temporary signs and free speech signs warranted the current amendments. Mr. Lindahl further reviewed the changes affecting the following sections: Findings, Purposes and Effect; Severability; Definitions; Administration and Enforcement; General Regulations; Prohibited Signs; District Regulations; and Substitution. Commissioner Schultz asked about the type of sign that was placed in front of Celt's downtown and how that type of sign is affected by the ordinance amendments. Mr. Lindahl replied that temporary changeable copy signs with lights or letters are deemed more appropriate for the non - downtown commercial areas. The ordinance was amended to prohibit those types of signs in the downtown area. Mr. Lindahl further explained the proposed standards for temporary signs in the downtown area and other cormercial areas, not downtown. Chairperson Messner inquired about free standing sidewalk signs and Mr. Lindahl explained the standards. regarding size and the time limitations for temporary signs. Commissioner Schwartz asked about how the ordinance relates to real estate signs specifically signs placed away from the subject property. Mr. Lindahl stated the ordinance prohibits signs hung in trees or placed in the right of way. However, he stated that staff realizes there is a need within the real estate community to place the sign to advertise homes. He invited comments or suggestions from the Commission on how aggressive the City should be in the enforcement of real estate signs. Commissioner Schwartz stated she felt that real estate signs placed within the right of way or in an area other than the property should be prohibited completely or restricted to a time limit. Chairperson Messner suggested treating them as sidewalk signs that are required to be taken down at the end of each day. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that it would be easier for the City to completely prohibit real estate signs rather than place a daily time limitation on them. The prohibition would allow staff to administer and enforce the ordinance easier and also there is a question about favoring one type of advertising sign over another. Commissioner Schwartz said this should also apply to builder/developer signs which can be up for years. Chairperson Messner asked about the requirements of a for -sale sign placed an industrial building someone is trying to sell and whether or not they would need a permit for such a sign. Mr. Lindahl pointed out which section in the ordinance would apply to that type of sign. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:02p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Lindahl further explained staffs desire to continue the item and the public hearing to give the public an additional chance to speak at the next meeting. MOTION by Schwartz to continue the Sign Ordinance Text Amendment and the Public Heating to the September 25, 2007, meeting. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2007 6.a. 07-13-TA Temporary Sign Zoning Text Amendment City of Rosemount. Planner Jason Lindahl presented this item. During the March 13, 2007 work session, staff reviewed the City's temporary sign standards, compared them with those of several surrounding Dakota County communities, and suggested minor changes to those standards. The changes proposed by staff during that meeting included increasing the duration of each temporary sign permit from 10 days to 14 days and establishing a size standard for temporary signs as 32 square feet. Two additional changes proposed were to add a new standard limiting portable reader boards to the C-1, Convenience Commercial, C-3, Highway Commercial and C-4, General Commercial Districts and to retain the existing standard limiting Sidewalk Signs to the C-2, Community Commercial (Downtown) District. The Commission based this direction on the findings that portable reader boards are larger than sidewalk signs and more suited for sites with front yard setbacks and off-street parking areas. By comparison sidewalk signs are, by definition, designed for buildings or businesses adjacent to the right-of-way with no front yard and to be placed on a sidewalk within a public right-of-way. Mr. Lindahl surrunarized the proposed changes to the ordinance. Mr. Lindahl also reviewed the issue of First Amendment claims with respect to signs and stated that Staff is working with the City Attorney and League of MN Cities on this issue. Staff requested further direction on the proposed changes. Chairperson Messner asked where in the ordinance it allows portable reader boards in C1,C3 C4, districts. Mr. Lmdahl pointed out the location and explained the exceptions. He explained the ordinance still allows for banners and sidewalk signs. He explained that reader boards are not being allowed in the downtown area because there isn't sufficient space for signs of that size. Commissioner Howell stated she felt that reader boards tend to be distracting. Chairperson Messner asked if churches or schools having a special event need to have a permit to place advertisement signs. Mr. Lindahl stated the only signs that do not need a permit are real estate signs, yard signs and campaign signs. He stated staff needs to look at this issue because there is the potential for someone to interpret that as favoritism over another business. Staff is having the City Attorney review this issue to make sure the City is being fair. Chairperson Messner asked where that type of sign is supposed to be located. Mr. Lindahl stated that real estate signs, campaign signs and garage sale signs are supposed to be placed on the property that the person owns or on which the activity is taking place. Staff has periodically removed signs for open houses and parade of homes that were located in the wrong area and then contacted the person to inform them they cannot have signs in the public right-of-way or off -premise. Mr. Lindahl stated the purpose of the item at tonight's meeting was for the Commission to take a formal look at the draft ordinance with respect to the language that would be changed before staff presents the draft ordinance to the business community for comment. The Corrunissioners all gave their endorsement for the proposed draft. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MARCH 13, 2007 b. 07-13-TA Temporary Sign Zoning Text Amendment. Planner Lindahl presented this item. He explained recent turnover in the Community Development Department personnel lead staff to reexamine the City's process for administering temporary signs permits (banners, pennants, portable reader boards, and the like). Last December, the Community Development Department began by taking inventory of the existing temporary signs within the community and asking for feedback from the Rosemount business community regarding their temporary sign needs. That inventory found a total of 18 businesses did not comply with the current temporary sign standards. Since that time, staff worked with each of these businesses to bring them into compliance. To date, all but one (nick's Auto) is in compliance. Staff continues to work with the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce, Discover Rosemount, and any interested business owners to assess the temporary sign needs of the community. In addition to this examination, staff compared the City's temporary sign standards to those of several surrounding communities and compiled a list of recommended changes to the Rosemount's temporary sign standards. Staff asked the Commission to review this information and provide direction regarding updates or changes to the City's temporary sign standards. Mr. Lindahl went on to explain the City's current Temporary Sign Standards and Compliance Process. Temporary/portable signs, beacons and the like are allowed in any public, commercial or industrial district. Permits may be obtained from the Community Development Department and must be submitted three (3) days prior to installation of the sign. The permit shall contain the following information: sign dimensions, height, color, material of construction, method of anchoring, content and location. The fee is $10 per permit if a business obtains the permit prior to placing the sign. However, the fee is $50 if a business places a temporary sign without a permit. Permits for temporary/portable signs shall be issued a maximum of six (6) times per year for a maximum of ten (10) days per permit. The length of the permit for revolving beacons or similar devices shall not exceed three (3) days and shall be issued a maximum of three times per year. Temporary signs shall conform to the setback of any existing freestanding sign on the property or the required setback for the zoning district in which it is located (usually ten feet), whichever is greater. In addition, temporary/portable signs may not be located within any corner sight triangle, public right-of-way or easement, or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of any other freestanding sign. Finally, the placement of temporary/portable signs may not otherwise interfere with safe pedestrian or vehicle movements. Mr. Lindahl went on to compare Rosemount's temporary sign standards with those of the surrounding communities. Mr. Lindahl directed the Commission to the table in the staff report that compared Rosemount's temporary sign standards with those of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, and Inver Grove Heights. While the temporary sign standards vary from community to community there were some universal standards. Each community limits temporary signs to certain zoning districts. Some allow them in all commercial, industrial, or institutional districts while others limit them to only commercial districts. The number of temporary sign permits allowed per year varies from as few as 2 to as many as an individual business may want. The length of an individual permit is typically 10 days with two communities (Apple Valley and Hastings) allowing 15 days. Similarly, the total number of days allowed under all permits in one year is typically 60 days with Apple Valley limiting it to 30 days per year. Fees range from as little as no charge to as much as $61.50. Size standards range from no limit to as small as 18 square feet. And, typically most communities limit businesses to one temporary sign at any given time with only Apple Valley allowing multiple temporary signs at any given time. The setback and positioning standards are also fairly uniform. Typically the setback standards range from 10 feet to 13 feet. In addition, all of the communities surveyed prohibit temporary signs from corner sight triangles, public rights -of -way, and any easement. Rosemount also requires temporary signs to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from any existing permanent ground sign. The types of temporary signs differ in each of the six communities. In general, all communities allow banners while most also allow portable reader boards, pennants, and sandwich board signs. All but one prohibits rooftop signs and all either ban electronic/flashing signs or (in the case of Eagan and Lakeville) have moratoriums in place while they examine their standards. Planner Lindahl went on to explain that last December's temporary sign inventory asked for feedback from the Rosemount business community regarding their temporary sign needs. Since that time, staff continues to talk with the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce, Discover Rosemount, and any interested business owners regarding the community's temporary sign needs. To date, staff has received comments from 8 businesses and 2 churches. Their comments are summarized below. 1. Reduce the fee. 2. Increase the number of permits allowed per year. 3. Increase the duration of each permit to at least 14 days to allow "advertising impact" and to correspond with the typical temporary sign rental period. Some businesses asked for an increase to 30 days per permit. 4. Allow sidewalk signs without a permit in all commercial districts, not just the downtown. 5. Allow electronic reader board temporary signs. Mr. Lindahl stated staff acknowledges some changes to the temporary sign standards may be appropriate to update/modernize the City's standards. To that end staff made the following recommendations. First, staff recommended increasing the duration of each temporary sign permit from 10 to 14 days. Mr. Lindahl noted this would necessitate an increase in the total number of days a business may have a temporary sign from 60 to 84 days (or nearly '/< of the year) annually. Second, staff recommended allowing sidewalk signs in all commercial districts, not just the downtown, without a permit. These sidewalk signs would be subject to all the current size, location, and display time standards in place for the Downtown district. Third, staff recommended reducing the size of temporary signs from 100 square feet to 32 square feet. Mr. Lindahl concluded by explaining staff plans to take the Commission's recommendation to the Discover Rosemount and/or the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce in the coming months and report back in the near future. The Commission discussed the City's temporary sign standards and those of the surrounding communities. As feedback, the Commission generally was supportive of staff recommend changes with a few acceptations. First, the Commission stated that temporary portable reader boards were better suited for the C-3, Highway Commercial and C-4, General Commercial district because of their auto -oriented design and should not be allowed in the C-1, Convenience Commercial or the C-2, Downtown Commercial districts because of the neighborhood, pedestrian, and traditional design of these districts. For these same reasons, the Commission stated sidewalk signs should continue to be prohibited in the C-3 and C-4 Districts and allowed in the downtown district. Second, Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with the sign ordinance as a whole and recommended staff consider updating the entire sign ordinance not just temporary signs. Commissioner Schwartz went on to add that she would like staff to specifically focus on the standards and enforcement of temporary real estate signs especially those for new developments, special events like the Parade of Homes, and open houses. Staff noted the recommendations of the Commission and stated that the next step will be to get input from the Chamber of Commerce and the Discover Rosemount group as well as bring specific text changes back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. j,EAGUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES REGULATING DYNAMIC SIGNAGE Executive summary Cities have authority and responsibility to regulate dynamic signs as appropriate for each community. There is no single correct approach to regulation. Because the regulation of signs involves the First Amendment, courts hold sign regulations to a higher standard than most land use regulations. Cities still have considerable discretion to regulate, as long as they do so reasonably and without regard to sign content. Introduction In the fall of 2006, a number of Minnesota cities were surprised by the appearance of large electronic billboards akin to giant television screens. These signs are the next generation of sign displays with the ability to feature changing images and movement —known collectively as dynamic signs. Attempts to regulate them resulted in litigation in at least one community - Minnetonka. In developing a regulatory response, Minnetonka partnered with the League of Minnesota Cities to commission a study, conducted by SRF Engineering, on the impact of such dynamic signs on traffic safety. This memorandum discusses the legal framework of regulating dynamic signage in light of the recent litigation and study. Regulatory framework While the federal and state government can enact and have enacted laws regulating signs, those regulations only provide minimum standards. Courts have explicitly recognized that cities have the ability to regulate signs, including dynamic signs, more restrictively. There is no uniform system of regulation that cities must follow. Each community is different and has different needs that local ordinances may reflect. Such regulations must meet the same basic legal tests for all sign regulation. Most city land use decisions get a very deferential standard of review known as rational basis review. Under this level of review, city decision will be upheld if they have any rational basis. Because sign regulations implicate free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment, they are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. The highest level of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny, applies when government tries to regulate based on the content of speech. The only content -based sign regulation that courts have upheld is treating off -premise signs (billboards) differently than on -premise signs that advertise the business on the same property. One distinction that may seem like it is content based, but our federal court of appeals has said is not, is a ban on dynamic signs with an exception for time and temperature displays. The court held LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNMILSITY AVE. WEST ?Hm (651)2814200 E4m (651) 281-1298 INSURANCE TRUST SE PAuLmN Ss103-m44 mLLm E (8= 925-1122 wmwww mcom that because of their unique nature, allowing only time and temp displays is not a prohibited content -based regulation. It is important not to overstate this, however. Regulations that go further and carve out a broader exception for "public information" are likely to be struck down as impermissibly content -based. Sign regulations that are not content based are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which tests whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. This roughly translates to "regulate for a good reason." Cities should take care that the scope of the regulation is not excessive when viewed in light of all of the regulatory objectives, and that they do not create exceptions to the regulations that cannot be justified by reference to one or more of the city's articulated objectives Big -picture regulatory tools The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content -neutral limits or even bans on dynamic signs for safety reasons. 'Be studies confirm that billboards can tend to distract drivers, dynamic features contribute to the distraction, and even short distractions can increase the risk of accidents. This is not surprising as promotional materials put out by sign companies themselves boast the signs' ability to hold viewer attention as a benefit of dynamic signs. Safety is only one concern. Cities may also regulate signs based on values, preferences, and aesthetics. Not every sign is appropriate in every community or every neighborhood. Not every community wishes to become Las Vegas or even downtown Minneapolis. Cities can take a number of different macro -level approaches to regulation. Some examples include: 1. Complete or near -complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all. 2. Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations. 3. Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in a downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods. 4.Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for removal of non -conforming static signs. 5. Encourage dynamic displays. Some communities like the clean, new look of dynamic signs and encourage them to remove old blighted and poorly maintained signs. Regulating sign aspects A content -neutral regulation that regulates dynamic signage will be subject to intermediate scrutiny, so a community must show a regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. In plain language, you must articulate what problem a regulation is intended to address and how the regulation addresses it. There are at least six aspects of dynamic signs that regulations may address: I. Duration of messages/speed of changeover. Studies have described the Zeigamik effect, a psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver's desire to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to 2 negatively impact drivers' tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane. To address these issues, many cities have imposed minimum message durations that might vary depending on community preference and traffic conditions. 2. Motion, animation, and video. Motion can range from simple visual effects to full realistic video. Motion can extend the period of time a driver will keep watching a sign, increasing distractedness. Cities may prohibit motion or limit it either to specific areas or to specific characteristics such as a motion time frame calibrated to traffic speed. 3. Brightness. Brightness can be a safety factor, particularly at night, as sudden brightness can be distracting or diminish night vision. A number of communities limit brightness based on time of day and by color displayed. This can be difficult to quantify and measure. 4. Sign placement and spacing. The number of signs and their location can be a big factor in driver awareness. A large number of signs can increase distractedness. Poorly placed signs may block views or cause distraction in unsafe areas. Cities may impose site standards and spacing requirements. These may present regulatory challenges as spacing may be dependent on the actions of neighboring property owners. S. Size of signs. Size can have impacts in several ways. Too big, and it obstructs views and distracts. Too small, and it takes longer to read and encourages sign users to sequence messages Cities may limit dynamic signs or the percentage of a sign that can be dynamic. 6. Text size and legibility. Signs that are difficult to read invite increased driver focus. Regulations can, for example, require minimum sizes based on road speed. The specifics of how to regulate each of these aspects is up to each community. Because review of regulations must face intermediate scrutiny, cities have to take some extra steps when drafting and adopting ordinances. For each aspect regulated, cities should consider adopting findings or local studies that articulate the reason and any support for the regulation. The SRF study and other materials can provide a scientific basis for a number of regulatory steps. In addition, cities may choose more stringent regulation in order to take a conservative approach to protecting safety. Moving forward It is recommended that cities think about dynamic signs as early as possible. Regardless of your city's approach, it is better to make a rational choice rather than by having dynamic signs arrive before you have thought about the issue. Once the signs are up, Minnesota's nonconforming use law arguably grants them "grandfathered" status, with a narrow exception for safety. If your city would like more information about regulating dynamic signs, Paul Merwin, LMCIT Senior Land Use Attorney, can provide assistance and refer you to more information and resources. Contact Paul at (651) 281-1278 or pmerwin(atlmc.org. Disclaimer: This memorandum is intended as general information only and should not read as legal advice or as creating an attorney -client relationship. This memo addresses general concerns and has not been reviewed in the context of a specific client or situation. This memo was drafted as a loss control document and is intended to avoid conflicts rather than form an opinion as to the legality or defensibility of any action. Last updated: 7-26-07 0 JOT, T"'o Friday, October 26, 2007 Mr. Jason Lindahl, Planner City of Rosemount 2875 1451h Street West Rosemount MN 55068 Dear Mr. Lindahl: After an exhausting effort of trying to find supporting information for the electronic reader board as it relates to city ordinances, I have finally obtained a study , I believe it was completed in 2004, through the United States Sign Council. Not only does this report address ALL issues and concerns that many cities like Rosemount have, but it also has included an ordinance for cities to use. This report "in a nut shell' says the same thing I have been saying. Do not ban them but govern them. The attached ordinance does just that. I would like to point out the section of "Regulation of Electronic Signs". As you can see, I have underlined parts that I think are particularly important to the city and Rosemount Storage. In particular, the violation of my First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Allowing others to display their messages via electronic reader boards, be it time and temperature or otherwise, is in direct violation of the First Amendment. In addition, limiting the content of said message also violates the First Amendment. It was recommended by the Chair, that I pursue a text amendment. After looking at the outrageous fee for this, unfortunately, I find that it is financially not feasible for me to do that at this time. If I was able to file the text amendment I would like you to know that I would attach the entire 17 page study that I am now. Rosemount Storage, Inc. 2745 1451h Street West, Rosemount MN 55068 Tel:651-322-7334 Fax:651-322-7224 I would urge the planning commission to revisit this issue sooner than the recommended January 2008 meeting as the City of Rosemount is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, ROSEMOUNT STORAGE, INC. J. Scott Askew Owner Cc: Bill Droste — Mayor Eric Zweber — Senior Planner Jason Messner — Chair Val Schultz — Vice Chair Jay Palda — Commissioner Dianne Howell — Commissioner Jeanne Schwartz — Commissioner Rosemount Storage, Inc. 2745 1451h Street West, Rosemount MN 55068 Tel:651-322-7334 Fax:651-322-7224 UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL Electronic Sign Zoning Information Electronic signs and electronic message centers are finding increasing use in On -Premise sign systems. This class of signs, utilizing state of the art computer technology and capable of full color display, provides users with the capability of instantaneous change in the display of graphic images or message content. Because of their unique capabilities, existing local sign regulation is frequently incapable of addressing their use over the full range of their operating characteristics. The following White Paper, entitled Regulation of Electronic Message Display Signs, and produced by the Electronic Display Educational Resource Association (EDERA) is offered by USSC, without additional comment or endorsement, as a means of furthering the informational base necessary to allow for the proper use and functioning of electronic signs in local zoning jurisdictions. REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS Overview We are all very fortunate to live in a society that places a premium value on freedoms, and limits governmental intrusion upon those freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of those essential freedoms, and one that is embodied within the Constitution that molds the rule of law governing this great nation. Many reputable organizations, like the U.S. Small Business Administration and the International Sign Association caution against sign regulations that interfere with the freedom of exercising commercial speech. The following information has been assembled by a coalition of manufacturers of electronic message display signs. We recognize the uncertainty surrounding the legality of certain sign regulations. We also respect the desire by communities to regulate signs, including electronic message display signs, and the need for responsible sign codes. Without engaging in debate over the legality of regulations affecting electronic message displays, the following materials are intended to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the current state of the technology, and to promote regulations that reflect the broad variations in the use of electronic message displays. The History of Changeable Message Signs In the day when signs were primarily painted, changing messages on a sign merely required painting over the existing message. More recently, signs with removable lettering made it possible to manually change the lettering on a sign to display a new message. Electrical changeable message signs followed the invention of the light bulb, and included light bulbs arranged in a pattern where, by lighting some light bulbs and not the others, letters and numerals could be spelled out. With the advent of solid-state circuitry in the early 1970s, electronic changeable message signs became possible. The first of these products were time and temperature displays and simple text message displays using incandescent lamps. These lamps were very inefficient. They used a great deal of power and had short life expectancies. During the energy crunch of the 1980s, it became necessary to find ways to reduce the power consumption of these displays. This need initially spawned a reflective technology. This technology typically consisted of a light -reflective material applied to a mechanical device, sometimes referred to as "flip disk" displays. Electrical impulses were applied to a grid of disks with reflective material on one side of the disk, and a contrasting finish on the other side. The electrical impulses would position each disk within the grid to either reveal or conceal the reflective portion of the device as required, to produce an image or spell out a message. These technologies were energy efficient, but due to the mechanical nature of the product, failures were an issue. Shortly after the introduction of the reflective products, new incandescent lamps emerged. The new "wedge base" Xenon gas -filled lamps featured many positive qualities. Compared to the larger incandescent lamps that had been used for several years, the wedge base lamps were very bright, required less power to operate and had much longer lifetimes. These smaller lamps allowed electronic display manufacturers to build displays that featured tighter resolutions, allowing users to create more ornate graphic images. Next in the evolution of the changeable message sign was the LED. LED (light emitting diode) technology had been used for changeable message displays since the mid 1970s. Originally, LEDs were available in three colors: red, green and amber, but were typically used for indoor systems because the light intensity was insufficient for outdoor applications and the durability of the diodes suffered in the changing temperatures and weather conditions. As technology improved, manufacturers were able to produce displays that had the intensity and long life required for outdoor use, but were limited in the viewing angle from which they could be effectively seen. Recently, breakthroughs in this field have made available high intensity LEDs in red, green, blue and amber. These LEDs have made it possible to produce displays bright enough for outdoor use with viewing angles that are equal to, or better than, other technologies currently available. They are energy -efficient, can be programmed and operated remotely, and require little maintenance. In addition, the computer software has evolved such that a broad range of visual effects can be used to display messages and images. The spacing of the LEDs can be manipulated to achieve near -television resolution. Earlier "flip disk" and incandescent technologies have become nearly obsolete as a result. Types of Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs can be placed into two basic categories: manually - changed and electronically -changed. The most common form of manually - changed sign involves a background surface with horizontal channels. Letters and numerals are printed on individual plastic cards that are manually fitted into the channels on the sign face. A broad range of letter styles and colors are available. The manually -changed sign is relatively inexpensive and is somewhat versatile. Some discoloration has been experienced in the background surface materials 2 with exposure to weather and the sun. Changing the message on such a sign is accomplished by having an employee or technician remove the existing plastic letter cards and replacing them with cards displaying the new message. Occasionally, such signs have been the subjects of vandals who steal the letters or, as a prank, re -arrange them to spell out undesirable messages. Over time, as letters are replaced with lettering styles that deviate in color or type style from the original set, such signs have had a tendency to take on a mix -and -match appearance. Electronic changeable message signs are generally of two types: light emitting and light reflective. Current light emitting display technologies include LED and incandescent lamp. Light reflective displays typically consist of either a reflective material affixed to a mechanical device (like a "flip disk') or a substance commonly referred to as electronic ink. Many of the above mentioned technologies have the capabilities to display monochromatic (single color) or multiple color images. Monochrome changeable message signs are typically used to display text messages. Multiple color displays are more common in applications where color logos or video is displayed. Operational Capabilities of Electronic Signs Electronic signs have evolved to the point of being capable of a broad range of operational capabilities. They are controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program. This software is typically a proprietary component that is supplied by the display manufacturer. These software programs determine the capabilities of the displays. The software is then loaded onto a computer that operates the sign. The computer may be installed within the sign itself, operated remotely from a nearby building, or even more remotely by a computer located miles away and connected to the sign with a telephone line modem or other remote communication technology. Since most of the software programs are proprietary, one can assume that each software program is slightly different. However, the capabilities that the programs offer are all very similar. Changeable message sign manufacturers provide software that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer -generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video. Text messages or graphic images can simply appear and disappear from the display or they can be displayed using creative entry and exit effects and transitions. 3 Example: Oftentimes a display operator will choose to have a text message scroll onto the display and then "wipe -off' as if the frame has been turned like the page of a book. If a display has the capabilities to display graphics, logos or even video, it is common for the display operator to add motion to these images. Example: A display operator at a school may wish to create an animation where their school's mascot charges across a football field and runs over the competing school's mascot. Video -capable displays can operate much like a television. These displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text. All display capabilities are securely in the hands of the display operators. They are ultimately responsible for what type of, and how, information is displayed on their changeable message sign. Traffic Safety Considerations Electronic message displays (EMDs) are capable of a broad variation of operations, from fully -static to fully -animated. In exterior sign use, they are often placed where they are visible to oncoming traffic. Concerns are often raised as communities change their sign codes to expressly permit such signage about the traffic safety implications for signage with moving messages. These concerns are largely unfounded. EMDs have been in operation for many years. As is typical with many technological advances, the regulatory environment has been slow to respond to advances in the technology itself. In 1978, after many years of the use of electronic signs, Congress first passed legislation dealing with the use of illuminated variable message signs along the interstate and federal aid primary highway system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act permitted electronic message display signs, subject to state law, provided each message remained fixed on the display surface but "which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote control," and did not include "any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights." 23 U.S.C. § 731. In 1980, and in response to safety concerns over EMDs along highways, the Federal Highway Administration published a report titled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable- Il Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause traffic accidents. In view of the inevitable use of the technology in signage, the report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for such signs: 1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their sign codes. 2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting such signs to be located at the property line, with no setback, and angled for view by oncoming traffic. 3. Operations: Duration of message on -time. The report states that the duration of the message on -time should be related to the length of the message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the message element. For instance, based on state highway agency experience, comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the on -time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on -times of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs 5 requires only that messages be changed at "reasonable intervals."' Moreover, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in a report on its website reviewing safety information compiled since the 1980 report, has concluded that there is no adverse safety impact from the use of The most recent study was performed in 2003 by Tantala Consulting Engineers, available through the U.S. Sign Council at http://www.ussc.org/publications. him1, also concluding based on field studies that EMD signs do not adversely of ect tra is safety. Many sma businesses using one -line EMD displays are only capable of displaying a few characters at one time on the display, changing frequently, which takes virtually no time for a driver to absorb in short glances. These signs have likewise not proven to be a safety concern, despite many years of use. 4. Operations: Total information cycle. EMD signs can be used to display stand-alone messages, or messages that are broken into segments displayed sequentially to form a complete message. As to the sequential messages, the report recommended a minimum on -time for each message "calculated such that a motorist traveling the affected road at the 85" percentile speed would be able to read not more than one complete nor two partial messages in the time required to approach and pass the sign." 5. Operations: Duration of message change interval and off -time. The report defines the message change interval as the portion of the complete information cycle commencing when message "one" falls below the threshold of legibility and ending when message "two" in a sequence first reaches the threshold of legibility. This is relevant when operations such as "fade off -fade on" are used, when the first message dissolves into the second message, or when the two messages move horizontally (traveling) or vertically (scrolling) to replace the first message with the second. Off -time, on the other hand, is a message change operation that involves the straightforward turning off of the first message, with a period of blank screen, before the second message is instantly turned on. The appropriate interval of message change may be affected by a variety of factors, and one standard does not fit all situations. Imagine, for instance, a bridge that serves two roadways, one with a speed limit of 30 mph and the other a highway with a speed limit of 60 mph. In a situation where the bridge is socked in by fog, an electronic sign on the approach to the bridge may be used to convey the message, "Fog ahead... on bridge... reduce speed ... to 15 mph." The driver on each roadway needs to see all the segments to the full message. The rate of changing each segment of the message needs to be different for each roadway. If the change rate were based only on the 60 mph speed, the sign on the slower roadway may appear too active. If the change rate were based only on the 30 mph speed, the result could be fatal to drivers on the highway. The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests that the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." The report further advocates minimizing off -time between messages, where static message changes are used, stating that "[a]s this interval of off -time is lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and comprehension is increased." The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually -stimulating environment along an otherwise mind - numbing segment of highway, helping to re -focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full -animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on highway -oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse effect of traffic safety. In sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of full -animation electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full -animation not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative position on operations of such signs along highways, advocating static message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message 7 change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signs should have adequate spacing between signs, but be set back from the right- of-way as little as feasible. Since 1980, no new information has become available supporting a traffic safety concern about EMDs. They have been installed in highway locations, along city streets and in urban core settings, using all forms of operations: static, sequential messaging and full animation. Despite such widespread use, and the presence of environmental organizations generally adverse to sign disolovs. no credible studies have established a correlation between emus ana An article in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in Spring, 1997, arrived at the some conclusion. Professor Taylor, of Villanova University, analyzing this lack of data to support such a correlation concluded that "there appears +_ I. ,,, r.,� +� +hat rhnnneable messaae sians represent a safety hazard." From a safety standpoint, and based on the studies and practical experience that has been accumulated since the widespread use of EMDs, some conclusions can be reached: degradinq traffic safety. • In an urban setting, such as along arterial streets, EMDs have been scrolling fading and dissolving without any apparent impact on traffic safety. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the primacy of the navigation task, and the secondary nature of roadside signage. • Along interstate and other limited access highways, the only significant traffic safety analysis recommends the use of static messages only, and the federal government permits message changes at "reasonable intervals." Many highway departments change messages on their own signs every 1-2 seconds. The report further recommends that sequential messages be timed to ensure that the entire sequence of messages be displayed in the time it takes a car to travel from initial legibility to beyond the sign. In practice, and in the 20+ years since publication of this report, the operational characteristics of such signs have been expanded to include 0 fading, dissolving, scrolling and traveling, without any apparent adverse effect on traffic safety. Regulation of Electronic Signs The history of the regulation of electronic signs has been largely marked by polar extremes in regulation. A number of zoning and sign codes have treated such signs as any other sign, with no special regulations. Others have attempted to prohibit their use in the entirety, largely out of concerns for traffic safety, and in some cases in the stated interest of aesthetics. For the reasons stated above the traffic safety concerns IC c+nrliac hnve suaaested that animated electronic signs may nep Keep MU UIIVCI Despite this, the fear of negative impact from potentially distracting signs has in the past motivated some communities to attempt to prohibit electronic signs altogether. Two common approaches have been to prohibit sign "animation" and the "intermittent illumination" of electronic signs. Both approaches have had their limitations. Electronic signs that are computer -controlled often have the capability to be displayed with a multitude of operational characteristics, many of which fall within the typical definition of "animation." However, static display techniques are quite commonplace with electronic signs, and the cost of using electronics in relatively typical sign applications has become more affordable. The programming of an electronic sign to utilize static displays only is simple and straightforward, yet probably overkill in the legal and practical sense. Nonetheless out of fear that the programming may be changed to animation after a sign is permitted and op erational, some local regulators have attempted to Fake the position that LED and other electronic signs are prohibited altogether. This position is unsound. There is no legal basis to deny a static -display electronic sign, as it is legally indistinguishable from any other illuminated sign. We don't prohibit car USaEle merely because the cars are designed so that they can excee the speed limit we issue a ticket to the driver if they do exceed the speed limit. Likewise if a sign owner actually violates the zoning or sign code the remedy is to +o +k, m fnr +ha vinlntion. not to presume that they will do so and refuse to issue Z permits at the outset. Moreover, most communities permit changing messages on signs displaying time and temperature, with no restrictions on timing. To apply a different standard to siqns displaying commercial or noncommercial messages would be to regulate on the basis of the content of the sign, in violation of the First The code technique of prohibiting "intermittent illumination" has its own limitations as it relates to electronic signs. The term "intermittent" suggests that the sign is illuminated at some times, and not illuminated at others. This is no basis to distinguish between an electronic sign and any other illuminated sign. Virtually all illuminated signs go through a cycle of illumination and non -illumination, as the sign is turned off during the day when illumination is not needed, or during the evening after business hours. If this were the standard, most sign owners would be guilty of a code violation on a daily basis. Other terminology may be used in sign codes, but the fact is that a regulation must be tailored to the evil it is designed to prevent. Community attitudes toward viewing digital images have changed nationwide, with personal computer use and exposure to electronic signs becoming widespread. People are simply accustomed to the exposure to such displays, more so than in years past. In some communities, there remains a concern about the potential that such signs may appear distracting, from a safety or aesthetic standpoint. Yet, static displays do not have this character, and even EMDs with moving text have not proven to have any negative impact. The real focus should be on the operations used for the change in message, and frame effects that accompany the message display. Many of these transition operations and frame effects are quite subtle, or otherwise acceptable from a community standpoint. It is now possible to define these operations, in the code itself, with sufficient specificity to be able to enforce signs are: 1) Duration of message display, 2) Message transition, and 3) Frame effects. With the exception of those locations where full animation is acceptable, the safety studies indicate that messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Government users of siqns have utilized 1-2 seconds on as a reasonable interval for messaae chances, a communities permit very short display times or continuous scrolling on ousiness signs without adverse effect. As a policy matter, some communities have elected to adopt longer duration periods, although to do so limits the potential benefits of using an electronic sign, particularly where messages are broken down into segments displayed sequentially on the sign. The message transitions and frame effects are probably the greater focus, from a sign code standpoint. It is during the message transition or frame effect that the eye is most likely drawn to the sign. What is acceptable is a matter of community 10 attitude. Flashing is a frame effect that is prohibited in many communities, but other more subtle transitions can be accepted. It is relatively easy to define four basic levels of operational modes for message transitions that can be incorporated into a sign code: Level 1 Static Display Only (messages changed with no transition) Level 2 Static Display with "Fade".or "Dissolve" transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images Level Static Display with 'Travel" or "Scrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once Level 4 Full Animation, Flashing and Video There are, in fact, other operations recognized within the industry. However, in practice they can be equated in visual impact with "fade," "dissolve," "travel" or "scrolling," based on their visual effect, or otherwise be considered full animation. Different transition operations may be acceptable in different locations. For example, communities like Las Vegas accept full animation as a community standard, whereas others accept full animation only in urban core locations where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable. Some communities may desire not to have an area with such visual stimuli, and elect to prohibit animation everywhere. However, in such a community, fade or scrolling may be acceptable forms of message transitions for static displays. In the most conservative communities, static displays with no observable transition between messages may be the only acceptable course. The next decision point for a community seeking to regulate electronic signs is procedural. Some signs may be acceptable always, while the community may determine that others are acceptable only in certain given circumstances. Alternatives to be considered for a sign code are as follows: Permit electronic signs "as a matter of right' • Permit electronic signs with certain transitions "as a matter of right' • Permit electronic signs, subject to a review procedure • Permit electronic signs, with certain transitions, subject to a review • A hybrid of the above For instance, one community may find it acceptable to permit electronic signs, with full animation, as a matter of right. Other than a straightforward sign permit, no other review is required. In another community, the sign code structure may permit: 1) Static displays with no transitions as a matter of right, 2) static displays using fade or dissolve transitions as a matter of right in certain commercial zoning districts, 3) static displays using travel and scrolling transitions and animations in certain commercial districts, subject to approval of a special use permit, where the approving board can consider compatibility with surrounding land uses and attach conditions on the rate of message changes, and 4) Fully-animated/video displays in the downtown commercial district only, subject to approval of a special use permit. The level of procedure involved should be tailored to the acceptance level of the community, and the resources available should public review be desired. In the following section, we have provided model code language that can be used, for reference, to incorporate into a community's sign code. The model language suggests code scenarios based on each of the four levels of display transitions. It also provides alternative language, for some scenarios, to either incorporate a special review procedure or not. Of course, the model language must be tailored to a particular community's sign code. Variation may be necessary, where, for instance, the special review procedure would be by the local planning commission, city council or design review board. With ease, the model code language can be modified to meet local conditions. © 2004 Electronic Display Manufacturers Association 12 Model Sign Code Provisions for Electronic Signs Level 1-Static Display (Message Changed with no Transition) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the RbSEMOUIJIL zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. c. Message Change Sequence. [Alternative 1: The change of messages must be accomplished immediately.] [Alternative 2: A minimum of 0.3 seconds of time with no message displayed shall be provided between each message displayed on the sign.] 13 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 2-Static Display (Fade/Dissolve Transitions) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the M5t-:�MWPI zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, changed only through dissolve or fade transitions, or with the use of other subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images, but which may otherwise not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 14 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 3-Static Display (Travel/Scroll Transitions and Animations) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY - A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME - a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT - a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. SCROLL - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move vertically across the display surface. TRANSITION - a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. TRAVEL - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move horizontally across the display surface. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the ROSC-"VlJ'V zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall be limited to static displays, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. W Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 4-Video/Animation Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means, including animated graphics and video. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the KoStE t6Ut-i zoning districts] 16 a TIM m C � C yoo O c� z os "f ki nFlv1� lll'� I +h tt • 4�f 4 • ` r a•. a f. 4L Alt .}k �1i'n1ti1� y,, T Summary of SignOrdinance Changes Ordinance Section Existing Proposed Comments Number Ordinance Change 11-8-1 Purpose, Definitions, Findings, Purpose, & Added detail to & General Effect Findings and Provisions Purpose. Created separate Definitions and General Regulations Sections 11-8-2 Permitted Signs Severability New Section 11-8-3 Permitting Procedure Definitions New stand alone and Ordinance sections with existing Compliance and new definitions Requirements 11-8-4 N/A Adipmis'6tion and ; ; Revised Permitting Enforceiiignt Procedure Section 11-8-5 N/A General Regulations New stand alone section with existing and new standards 11-8-6 N/A 's> Prohibited Signs New section 11-8-7 N/A District Regulations Reorganize existing standards 11-8-8 N/A Substitution I New section Notes: Language in italics represents ordinance. Section 11-8 Sins from the existing sign MIN 11-8-1: Findings, Put=ose and Effect „g,,, A. Findings: The City Council hereb�g�finds as f 1. Exterior siens have a substantial itnoa Environment. 2. Signs provide an important mediumd variety of messages. 3. SietisIcan create traffic hazards; aesthe and the appearance of the community. B Purpose and intent It is not the pumose or intent of this sign ordinance to regulate the viewed from outside a building The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to: and welfare. 2. Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the city by preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community. 3. Improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of communication consistent with constitutional guarantees and the City's og als of public safety and aesthetics. 4. Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set for herein under the zoning authority of the City C Effect. A sign may be erected. mounted. disnlaved or mainfa is in the citv if it is i specifically set forth herein is to: BANNERS: Attention getting devices which resemble flags and are of a paper, cloth or plastic like consistency. FLAG: A rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design which is mounted on a pole that is used as a symbol (as a nation), signaling device (nautical), or attention getting device (advertising, commercial or noncommercial). FREESTANDING SIGN: Any sign that is attached directly to the ground or is supported vertically by any structure having a source of support independent of any building existing on the premises on which the sign is located. HEIGHT: The height of a sign shall be measured from the centerline of the street or highway toward which the sign is principally displayed to the top of the sign. IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign which displays only the name, address and title of an occupant or the name and address of a building or development. LEGAL NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any sign lawfully in existence on the effective date hereof or any sign lawfully in existence on the date of any amepdfuent to this chapter which does not conform to the regulations affecting signs for the diSfxict in which the sign is situated. NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any sign which does not conform to the regulations of this chapter. ON PREMISES SIGN: Any sign that dire premises, or to the name of the building ri 5,. product, service, entertaii ent, or activity which such sign is PENNANT: A flag or or to er which tapers to a so designed as to lE eption to the name! of the building, Ine t firm, or to: the business, principal acted, sold or•offered upon the premises on speech. movable from one location to another, and , sales display device or structure. PROJECTTxTG SIGN: Any sign whiclY"is affixed to the outside of the exterior wall or soffit { r�. of any builditg and is not parallel to the plane of the wall or soffit. SIDEWALK SIGNS., A �iortable sign for temporary placement on a sidewalk in the public right of way, intendedfgt�'a'building or business located adjacent to the right of way with no front yard or a front yas`dJlthat will not accommodate a permanent freestanding sign as permitted by this chapter. SIGN: Any letter, work, symbol, model, printed, projected or affixed device, poster, picture, reading matter, or other representation in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, direction or informative device including structural and component parts that is located outdoors and is larger than one square foot in area. SIGN AREA: The area of a sign includes the space inside a continuous line drawn around and enclosing all letters, designs and background materials exclusive of border, trim and structural supports. For the purpose of calculating the area of multiple faced or back to back signs, the stipulated maximum sign area shallrefer to a single face. SIGN. ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPAY: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, static images, static graphics or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using_ different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the displace where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade re- pixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic display signs include computer more images. SIGN. OFF -PREMISES: A commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public to a business, activity conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same lot where such sign is located. For purposes of this sign ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such lot and any sign located or proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an off - premises sign. SIGN OFFICAL• Signs of a Public noncommercial nature including public notification signs safety s_Zns traffic signs direction to public facilities when erected by or on behalf of a Public official or employee in the Performance of official duty. SIGN ROOF: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and above the roof of a building supported by the roof structure and extending vertically above the highest portion of the roof. SIGN ROOF INTEGRAL• Any building sign erected or constructed as an integral or essenti U integral part of a normal roof structure of any design so that no part of the sign SPEECH COMMERCIAL Speech advertising a business profession commodity service or entertainment SPEECH NON- COMMERCIAL: Speech dissemination of messages not classified as commercial which include but are not limited to messages concerning politicaL religious, social ideological public service and informational topics. TRAFFIC SIGN! A sign whieh is ereeted by a gever-nneiatal ftgeiley far the purpose E) WALL SIGN: A sign which is affixed to the exterior wall, mansard roof or soffit of a building and which is parallel to the building wall. A wall sign does not project more than twelve inches (12") from the surface to which it is attached, nor extend beyond the top of the parapet wall. (Ord. B-5, 7-3-1990; amd. Ord. B-83, 4-15-1997, l 11-8-4: Administration and Enforcement A 2 forms provided by the C4.. a Names and addresses of the applic b d Type and size of sign (e.g., wall sign. Pylon sign). e A site Plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures, parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features. f Plans, location and specifications and method of construction and attachment to the buildings or placement method on the ground. g Copy of stress sheets and calculations showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this and all other laws and ordinances of the City. F. h Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to be erected. i Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign. j A detailed description of any electronic or electrical components that ate proposed to be added to the sign. k Other information to demonstrate compliance with this and all other ordinances of the City. These numbers shall be gOxed to the Princi�al structure except in nonsewend areas when address numbers shall be mixed to mailboxes or a separate structure plain& legible and visible from the street or road fronting the access to the broerdy. (Ord B-154, 5-17-2005) 3 Sidewalk Signs Sidewalk signs in the C-2 Community Commercial district, subiect to the {ollowing-standardr: a Signs shall be limited to two feet (29 in width and three and one-half feet (3.5') in height, including .rubbort�embers. b No sign shall have mare than two (2) faces. c Signs shall not limit the normal -pedestrian use of the sidewalk, and a minimum Passable contiguous .race of three feet �Y) shall be maintained at all times. d One sign is permitted for each building ad acent to the -public right of way, unless multi le businesses witbin one building allow separate business signs to be spaced no closer than thirty feet (30') from another sidewalk sign. C Nonconformaig Signs and Uses: (daces L' sting Signs) Code. 2 Nonconforming Uses: When the principal use of land is legally nonconforming under Section 11-11 of the City Code all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land use shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance with the sip provisions for the most restrictive zoning_ district in which the principal use is allowed. 9 D Enforcement and Penalties: (Ulaces Ongoine Ordinance Compliance Requirements For New and Bxistinn Signal. 1 This chapter shall be administered and enforced by the Community Development Department designee The Community Development Department designee may institute in the name of the City appropriate actions or proceedings against a violator. 2 Inspection All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Community Develoome�partment designee 2 No sign shall be erected in or overhang upon a public right of way or otherwise interfere with safe pedestrian or vehicular movement, except traffie official signs. 3 No sign shall contain colors, shapes, intermittent lighting or words such as "stop", "warning", "caution", etc., which may be confused with traffic signing or controls unless such signs are intended or approved for such use. 4 Electrical signs shall be installed according to state electrical codes and shall require underground wiring. 10 5 No sign or sign structure shall be permitted to interfere with the safe access to doors, windows or fire escapes. 6 No sign shall contain intermittent, flashing or other type of lighting which changes in intensity or color when artificially illuminated, except time and temperature signs. 7 No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress ox attached to a standpipe or fire escape. No exterior sign shall pivot, move, rotate or display, ai}y moving parts including electronic reader Beards changeable copy signs,. except tune and temperature or other public information. 9 No sign shall be painted directly on the exterior surface., of any build�tt Aker 10 . (Afov)ed to Prohibited Signs 11-84) 11 Signs which advertise a business, activity, product or service not located exclusively on the premises are prohibited except as regulated herein. 12 1 nor interfere with any electric light. power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. 17 Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting may not illuminate any adjacent properties buildings, or streets. 11 - �... - wiypp • .WINNOW., , 12 :. PAMPM .�-01 f. All sips must be rmoved f�etn the sidewalk at the e4d ef eaeh business day. g. Ne sidewalk sigB shall be lighted by attaehed external ev iffdivi"al ifttef!ftal lights. standards. which the sign is located. E Flags. Flags displayed in commercial and industrial districts shall not exceed in surface area the maximum permitted for freestanding signs, provided further that the display of more than three (3) flags shall be debited against the total freestanding signage area permitted. (Ord. B-5, 7-3-1990) F Landscaping. Subject to the standards of the individual zoning district in which the signn is placed, the area around freestanding signs shall be landscaped with plantings and 13 maintained in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. G Temporary signs Applications for temporary signs permits shall follow the Administration and Enforcement requirements detailed in Section 11-8-4. subject the following -specific performance standards (Addedfiom Earlier Review/ Ubdatel 1 Number and Duration of Permit Each property may have only one temporary sign permit at anygiven time Permits for temporary signs may be issued a maximum of B All signs over two hundred and fifty (250) square feet in area. C All off -premises signs. D Changeable copy signs electronic except those allowed by Sections 11-8-5 D of the City Code or with an approved sign permit issued prior to the date of this ordinance. E Content classified as 'obscene" as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 617.241. 14 F Electronic ggaphic display, signs. G Flashing signs. H Multi -vision signs. I Portable signs except as allowed by this Chapter. J Roof signs. K Rotating signs. L Shimmering signs. M Signs painted, attached or in any other manner of or attached to ud ty poles, bridges, towers, or, sm ry N Video displav signs. to 4. a5r'�•� D.Emeeptiefis: (Moved to C — Commercial:. District . -- 15 11 8 7 District Regulations• The following signs are allowed by specific zoning district. • • 8 mamem.-I IN 110.1-4110- awawwmw 16 ixv%"� r E`'r A Signs Allowed By Permit In Agricultural Districts: 1 One sign pet farm identifying the name of said farm not exceeding twenty four (24) square feet. 2 One sign per farm advertising agricultural products raised in part on the premises not exceeding thirty two (32,).square B Signs Allowed By Permit In Residential Districts: 1 Permanent identification signs for residential developments not exceeding thirty six (36) square feet pet sign with a maximum of two (2) signs at each principal entrance; provided signs are located on private property and do not jeopardize traffic or pedestrian safety. 2 One identification sign for multiple -family dwellings not exceeding twenty four (24) square feet, set back a minimum of ten feet (10') from all property lines not exceeding three feet (3) in height .. ". lease of dwelling titiks on the pferr�ses fiat emeeeding one htfftd±ed (100) square fee nei! tweftty feet (20) in height. For Sale or Lease signs subject to the standards Section 17 4 One identification sign per each permitted public and institutional principal building or use not exceeding thirty six (36) square feet or six feet (6� in height. (Ord. B-5, 7- 3-1990) R: C Signs Allowed By Permit In Commercial And BP Districts: FU 1 C-1, Convenience Commercial and C-2, Neighborhood Commercial as follows: Wall Signs. Not exceeding fifteen percent (1 S%) of the total area of the wall on which the Si gns are affixed Wall signs to be constructed on structures with more than one sign shall be designed according to an approved sign conceptplan in which all signs have complementary designs, similar shapes and sign areas. Consideration may be made by PUD to permit variation in sitie and design of signs for major tenants or anchon.businesses in larger complexes. b Freestanding signs. One f restandt'ng sign for each prinezprt structure not exceeding eighty (80) square feet nor twenty feet (20 ) in height. Subdivisions Signs: For the purposes of creating identity in planned subdivisions, in addition to otherfreestanding signs allowed by this chapter, one freestanding subdtmnan ideni(cation sign shall be allowed limited to eighty (80) rquare feet and twenty feet (20 % to ht Subdivision identification signs shall only he permitted on pitperky yAhlnn the subdivision being identified which is situated on a pnnc jttd or minor arterial as identified in the city of Ito'semount comprehensiveguideplan. Furthermore, subdivision identification sign shall be situated closer Than one hundred feet (100) to any otherpermiited freestanding sign. M g, hiectrotuc�)igns suoject to teie stanaaras in aection 2 C-3;. Highway Commercial and C4, General Commercial as follows: a Wall Signs Not exceeding twenty percent (2001o) of the total area of the wall on which the signs are affixed. Wall, igns to be constructed on structures with more than one sign shall be designed according toan approved sign conceptplan in which all signs have complementary designs, simz�dri japes and sign areas. Consideration may be made by PUD to permit variation in si and design of rigns for major tenants or anchor businesses in lager complexes. b Freestandi'ng Signs: One freestanding sign for each principal structure not exceeding one hundred (100) squarefeet nor twenty feet (20 ) in height. c Subdivisions Signs. For the putposes of creating identity inplanned subdivisions, in addition to otherfreestanding signs allowed by this chapter, one freestanding subdivision identification sign shall be allowed limited to one hundred (100) squarefeet and twenty feet (20 ) in height. Subdivision identification signs shall only be permitted on pmpeity within the subdivision being identified which is situated on a principal or minor arterial as identified in the city of 19 Rosemount comprehensive guide plan. Furthermore, subdivision identification sign shall be situated closer than one bundred feet (100� to any otberpermitted freestanding sign. d Changeable Copy Signs subject to the standards in Section 11-8-5.A e Te=oraryigns subject to the standards in Section 11-8-5.I f For Sale or Lease signs subject to the standards in Section 11-8-4.B.6 g Electronic Signs subject to the standards in Section 11-8-5.D h Marquee Signs. Movie theaters are allowed chasing and running lights on marquees subject to the requirements for wall signs in commercial and business park distncts and the following standards: (1) Running and chasing lights are only community commercial districts; (Or, (2) Signs with running and chasing legbts are hundred fifty feet (250), of residential dirt the lights shall not exceedian illumination (Ord B-78, 12-3-1996) 994). and C-2 walls that aiz;Whin two uses firm which the 4ji is visible, and ty of 0.5 lumens at the properly line. (3) No signs with running and cbasing lights are, allowed in :a fimntyard setback; (4) Signs zb running and chasing ligbif, shall be aminimum of twelve feet (12) above the adjdcentgrade elevation and streetgrd4e elevation; (5) The power of illumination of running and chasing lights shall be limited to fifteen (15) watts per bulb; (6) Running and chasing lights shall not be located near intersections nor within the sight yytnanAle adjacent town intersection; (7) Ong,permanent mall signs shall be allowed running and chasing lights; and (8) Hours ofs j ,urination shall be limited to between the hours of eleven thirty o'clock (11:30) A.M. artd'eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. (Ord. B44, 7-5-1994) 3 BP, Business Park as follows: Wall Signs. Not exceeding twenty percent (2001o) of the total area of the wall on which the signs are affixed Wall signs to be constructed on structures with more than one sign shall be designed according to an approved sign concept plan in which all signs have complementary designs, similar shapes and sign arras. Consideration may be made by PUD to permit variation in size and design of signs for major tenants or anchor businesses in larger complexes. 20 b Freestanding Signs: One freestanding sign for each principal structure not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet nor twenty feet (20) in height. c Subdivisions Signs: For the purposes of creating identity in planned subdivisions, in addition to other freestanding signs allowed by this chapter, one freestanding subdivision identification sign shall be allowed limited to one hundred (100) square feet and tweny feet (20) in height. Subdivision identification signs shall only be permitted on property within the subdivision being identified which is situated on a principal or minor arterial as identified in the eiy of Rosemount comprehensive guide plan. Furthermore, subdivision identification sign shall be situated closer than one hundred feet (100) to any otherpermitted freestanding sign. d Temporary signs subject to the standards in Section >11-8; I D Signs Allowed by Permit in the Industrial Districts (LI, Lgbt Industrial, GI, General Industrial, and HI, Heavy Industrial). 1 Wall signs. Wall signs not exceeding twenty percent (20%),of the total area of the wall on which the signs are affixed. 4 .. 5'i Karl{S 2 Freestanding Signs. One freestanding ngn for eachprincipal structure not exceeding one hundred XI (100) squarefeet nor twenty feet (20) in %ht. 3 Subdimsions'Signs For the purposes of creating identiy in planned subdivisions, in addition to other freestanding signs allowed by this chapter, o f estanding subdivision identification sign shall be allomved limited to one hundi-ed (100) square . et and tweny feet (20) in height. Subdivision identficationsigns shall only bepermitted onpropery within the subdivision being identified which is situated on a pnncipal or minor arterial as identified in the ciy of Rosemount conmpre nsiveguide plan. Furthermore, subdi94non ident fication sign shall be situated closer than one hundred feet (100') to any otherper ii ed freestanding sign. .. Ley 21 fifteen b a ie ( Signs -arc., -ram K E Signs Allowed by Permit in the Fil/ District.• F 9 Navigational signs including barge sbip 2 Park identification and interpretation signs (Ord. B S, 7-3 -' 1990) v:, 7 Electronic Signs subject to the standards in Section 11-8-5.D LEM 22 OR ------------ 11-8-8: SUBSTITUTION: The owner of any s� which is otherwise allowed by this sign ordinance may substitute non- commercial copy in lieu of aa" other commercial or non-commercial copy. This substitution of copy may be made without any additional approval or permitting The purpose of this provision is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over non-commercial speech or favoring of any particular non-commercial message over any other non- commercial message This provision prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary. 23 Rosemount, MN Suggestions for proposed amendments The proposed amendments, although well intended, severely hinder effective communication through signs. This code can benefit both the city and local businesses with only a few, minor changes. To help alleviate these code flaws, I have proposed the following amendments. I. Findings, Purpose and Effect a. The section concerning findings, purpose and effect (11-8-1) possesses only small flaws. The acknowledgment concerning the importance of signs as a mode of communication is great. However, subsection 3, describing how signs can cause traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and diminished property values is too accusatory. There has been no evidence concluding that a sign causes traffic hazards nor has do signs diminish property value. The three points brought up in the subsection are important governmental regulatory issues, but claiming that signs cause these concerns is misguided. The subsection should be struck and amended with the following: 3. It is within the government's power to regulate on the basis of safety and aesthetics to prevent hazards to the citizenry. II. Definitions: a. The definitions section does a good job of accurately describing everything that is needed within the code. However, it would benefit all parties involved to insert and amend certain definitions. The following definition should be inserted: i. SIGN, ANIMATED: A signor portion thereof that contains characters or images which move by mechanical or electronic means. b. The definitions of SIGN, ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPLAY and SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY — ELECTRONIC should be combined to read as follows: i. SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY— ELECTRONIC: A signor portion thereof that displays electronic text information, static images, static graphics or static pictures, in which each is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of illumination devices within the display area. - The original amendment differentiates between images and text. Later amendments infer that the differentiation between text and image is meant to allow text in districts while restricting images. This is content -base discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court has continuously struck down content -based ordinances on speech (see Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network 507 U.S. 410 (1993), 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island 517 U.S. 484 (1996), Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v. United States 527 U.S. 173 (1999), North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. City of North Olmsted 86 F. Supo.2d 755 (2000)). - Striking the portions of the definitions concerning exact technology and projected images allows for the use of future new technology. c. The definition for SIGN, TIME AND TEMPERATURE is not needed. Again, differentiating between time and temperature signs and other changeable message centers is a content -based regulation that will ultimately be struck down in the Courts. The proposed (amended) definition for SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY- ELECTRONIC will encompass time and temperature signs. III. Permitting: a. The proposed amendments do not include avenues for appeal when a permit is denied. This aspect is constitutionally required in a code. Inserting the following in Section 11-8- 7.A after subsection (6) will alleviate the above concerns: 7. Court review. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Community Development Department, city council, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department or board of the city, may make application with the circuit court for appropriate writ. IV. Zoning Districts: a. The proposed amendments break the various zones into sections, stating what signs are allowed in each zone. Most sign codes follow the same format. My only criticisms involving the various zones are that electronic changeable copy signs are only allowed in the Public and Institutional District. By definition, the Public and Institutional District is "primarily intended to accommodate major public and institutional uses of a governmental, educational, cultural, recreational, public service and healthcare nature that serve the entire community. Where available, structures shall be serviced by the public sewer and water systems." The existing code also states the commercial uses in this district are only permitted by conditional use permit. In other words only governmental institutions and those commercial institutions which the government deems fit, may utilize electronic changeable message centers. Again, this is a content - based regulation and could be considered a prior restraint. By only allowing electronic changeable copy signs in a district where commercial uses are subject to a conditional use permit, the government is picking and choosing who may have a particular medium of communication. The inferred reasoning behind banning electronic changeable message signs in other districts in based on safety and aesthetics. However, governmental organizations may utilize this unique method of communication. Are electronic changeable message signs displaying government information somehow safer or more visually pleasing than other electronic changeable message signs? The Courts don't believe so (see Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network 507 U.S. 410 (1993), 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island 517 U.S. 484 (1996), Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v. United States 527 U.S. 173 (1999), North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. City of North Olmsted 86 F. Suop.2d 755 (2000)). i. Instead of merely allowing electronic changeable message signs in the Public and Institutional District, the code should allow them in commercial and industrial districts as well. By allowing this valuable method of communication in these districts, the city can avoid making a content -based ban on these signs and ultimately avoid future litigation. V. General Sign Regulations: a. Amendments should be made to the various districts allowing electronic changeable message signs. The best way of doing this is as follows: i. Amend 11-8-4.1) (3) to the following: 3. Electronic Changeable Copy Signs are permitted regardless of the technology used, provided: a. Such sign has a static message lasting no less than one second; b. Such sign achieves a transition to another static image or message over a period of not more than one second; c. Such sign does not contain flashing or intermittent light; d. Such sign will appropriately adjust display brightness as ambient light levels change; and e. Sign area shall not exceed INSERT AREA REQUIREMENT i. This amendment will allow electronic changeable copy signs in multiple districts. It will avoid the content -based prior restraints that are prevalent in the current amendment version. The language prohibits flashing, intermittent light or movement by the sign, while allowing it to communicate a full message in an effective manner. On -premise, electronic changeable copy signs need multiple frames to communicate their messages. A one -second hold -time prevents flashing while allowing ample time to communicate a message. b. Further amendments should be made to the various districts for inclusion of electronic changeable copy signs. i. Amend 11-8-7.0 (3) after subsection (e) to include the following: f. Electronic Signs subject to the standard of Section 11-8-5.1) ii. Amend 11-8-7.1) after subsection (5) to include the following 6. Electronic Signs subject to the standard of Section 11-8-5.1) c. Possible amendments could include allowing sign animation subject to conditional -use permits. Businesses utilize animation to show various aspects of their products or services. Even simple animations will bring customers into a store. Animation can also improve the vitality and atmosphere of urban areas. Animation is not necessarily appropriate for all areas. i. Amend 11-8-4.0 (8) to state the following: 8. No exterior sign shall pivot, move, rotate or display any moving parts including electronic changeable copy signs, without a conditional use permit. d. Provisions should be struck from 11-8-6: Prohibited Signs. i. Subsection E should be deleted, because the proposed amendments would not even include a definition for Electronic graphic displays ii. Subsection I should be deleted, because prohibiting multi -vision signs would ban an important medium of expression. VI. Off -Premise Signs a. It is your community's prerogative to ban off -premise signs. The only thing I can suggest is to allow existing billboards to be maintained. Minnesota possesses a statute for just compensation for any billboards along a state or federal highway. Just compensation should be paid for any off -premise sign that is forcibly removed. VII. Noncommercial Signs: a. While sorting through the proposed language I noticed a lot of differentiation between time and temperature signs and electronic changeable copy signs. These signs are one in the same. The code should not differentiate between the two, for the same reasons as government institution signs shouldn't be held in higher regard than other electronic changeable copy signs. Section 11-8-8 contains a disclaimer stating that the code does not want to favor commercial signs over noncommercial signs. The opposite should also be true. Commercial and noncommercial signs are both protected forms of speech. Supreme Court cases have even gone so far as to infer that commercial and noncommercial speech deserve the same protection under the First Amendment (see City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network 507 U.S. 410 (1993), 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island 517 U.S. 484 (1996), Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v. United States 527 U.S. 173 (1999), North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. City of North Olmsted 86 F. Supp.2d 755 (2000)). ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: November 7, 2007 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM: 2008 Budget Discussion PREPARED BY: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator AGENDA NO. Z V ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Give staff direction ISSUES At the last Council budget discussion on October, 30 staff was asked to review the 10 Year Capital Improvement Program to evaluate the possibility of moving away from the use of equipment certificates. Staff will have suggestions and funding implications for discussion at the meeting. Council Member Shoe -Corrigan also raised a question regarding the future financial commitments for operating the ice arena. Staff would like to engage the Council in a discussion to determine if there is consensus on what level of taxpayer subsidy is appropriate. Parks & Recreation Director Schultz and his staff have been evaluating user fees for ice rental. Additionally, Director Schultz has opined that the key issue related to future funding of the ice area primarily revolves around the need for capital improvements and the building of reserves enough to cover those anticipated expenditures. Staff would also like to bring resolution to staffing recommendations. SUMMARY Staff anticipates that the 10-Year CIP will be on the Council agenda November 20 for adoption. Any final changes to the budget and levy should also be made soon as Finance Director May will need some time to prepare documents and information necessary to present at the December 3 Truth -in -Taxation Hearing. Should there still be outstanding budget issues for discussion, Council may wish to schedule a special council work session to follow the regular City Council meeting on November 20. Size of Cormnercial Buildings Establishment Location Square Feet US Bank Apple Valley 8,000 per floor; 16,000 total Walgreen's Rosemount 15,000 Barnes & Nobles Apple Valley 20,000 Apple Valley Medical Clinic Apple Valley 32,000 Office Max and Party City Apple Valley 35,000 Best Buy Apple Valley 35,000 Rainbow Foods Apple Valley 60,000 Cub Foods Apple Valley 70,000 Kohl's Apple Valley 80,000 Wa1Mart Apple Valley 120,000 Sam's Club Apple Valley 125,000 Home Depot Apple Valley 125,000 Menard's Apple Valley 160,000 SuperTarget Apple Valley — Cedar Ave 180,000 Size of Commercial Buildings Establishment Location Square Feet US Bank Apple Valley 8,000 per floor; 16,000 total Walgreen's Rosemount 15,000 Baines & Nobles Apple Valley 20,000 Apple Valley Medical Clinic Apple Valley 32,000 Office Max and Parry City Apple Valley 35,000 Best Buy Apple Valley 35,000 Rainbow Foods Apple Valley 60,000 Cub Foods Apple Valley 70,000 Kohl's Apple Valley 80,000 WalMart Apple Valley 120,000 Sam's Club Apple Valley 125,000 Home Depot Apple Valley 125,000 Menard's Apple Valley 160,000 SuperTarget Apple Valley — Cedar Ave 180,000 Size of Commercial Buildings Establishment Location Square Feet US Bank Apple Valley 8,000 per floor; 16,000 total Walgreen's Rosemount 15,000 Barnes & Nobles Apple Valley 20,000 Apple Valley Medical Clinic Apple Valley 32,000 Office Max and Party City Apple Valley 35,000 Best Buy Apple Valley 35,000 Rainbow Foods Apple Valley 60,000 Cub Foods Apple Valley 70,000 Kohl's Apple Valley 80,000 Wa1Mart Apple Valley 120,000 Sam's Club Apple Valley 125,000 Home Depot Apple Valley 125,000 Menard's Apple Valley 160,000 Su erTarget Apple Valley — Cedar Ave 180,000 Size of Commercial Buildings Establishment Location Square Feet US Bank Apple Valley 8,000 per floor; 16,000 total Walgreen's Rosemount 15,000 Barnes & Nobles Apple Valley 20,000 Apple Valley Medical Clinic Apple Valley 32,000 Office Max and Parry City Apple Valley 35,000 Best Buy Apple Valley 35,000 Rainbow Foods Apple Valley 60,000 Cub Foods Apple Valley 70,000 Kohl's Apple Valley 80,000 Wa1Mart Apple Valley 120,000 Sam's Club Apple Valley 125,000 Home Depot Apple Valley 125,000 Menard's Apple Valley 160,000 SuperTarget Apple Valley — Cedar Ave 180,000 ARTICLE I Definitions Section I.I. Definitions. This Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "Authority" means the Rosemount Port Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota. "Authorizing Resolution" means the resolution of the Authority authorizing issuance of the Note, substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit B. "Available Tax Increment" means, as determined on each date on which payment on the Note is due, 70% of the Tax Increment that is received by the Authority in the six-month period immediately before each payment date, provided that: (a) with respect to the August 1, 2007 payment on the Note, and if payment on the Note is deferred for any reason, Available Tax Increments shall include 70% of all Tax Increments which have been received by the Authority prior to August 1, 2007, or during the period of deferral, and which have not previously been applied; and (b) in the event that the assessed market value of all improvements located on the Property does not equal at least $80,000,000 as of January 2, 2010, the 70% share of Tax Increment shall be reduced to 50%, beginning with the February 1, 2010 payment on the Note and thereafter. "City" means the city of Rosemount, Minnesota. "County" means the county of Dakota, Minnesota. "Developer" means Contractor Property Developers Company, a Minnesota Corporation, or its permitted successors and assigns. "Event of Default" means an action by the Developer listed in Article VIII of this Agreement. "Maturity Date" means the earlier of December 31, 2031 or the date that the Note has been paid in full. "Minimum Improvements" means the acquisition of the Property, the demolition of the improvements located thereon, and environmental cleanup. "Note" means, collectively, one or more Tax Increment Revenue Notes issued by the Authority substantially in the form contained in the Authorizing Resolution. P