The URL can be used to link to this page

09-1015Substitute 12/02/09 Council File # 09-1015 GreenSheet# 3077776 ORDINANCE � CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � 1 2 3 4 5 SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE 6 WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission, on March 27, 2009, released a draft Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance 7 for public review, and set a public hearing for Apri124, 2009; and 8 WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance was conducted by the 9 Planning Commission on April 24, 2009, at which all persons present were allowed to testify; and 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the public testimony and recommendations of its Neighborhood ll Planning Committee on the proposed amendments to Chapter 64, Signs, and made its recommendations to the 12 Mayor and City Council on August 21, 2009; and 13 WHEREAS, a public heazing before the City Council having been conducted on October 21, 2009, and December 2, 14 2009, at which aU interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard, the Council having considered all the 15 facts and recommendations concerning the amendments; NOW THEREFORE, 16 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: 17 18 Section 1 19 That Legislative Code Chapter 64 is hereby amended as follows: 20 Sec. 64.101. Intent and purpose. 21 The purpose of this chapter is as follows: 22 (a) To regulate the time, place, and manner in which si ns may be e�ibited; 23 (bl To protect the ri�ht of information transmittal; 24 �� To promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community; �U�� a � za�� 25 �d�)To encourage a concern for the visual environment which makes the city a more desirable place to live; 26 �(� To identify and promote business and industry in the city; 27 (f�(�j To reduce hazards which may be caused by signs projecting over public rights-of-way; 28 �EejTo protect open space and azeas chazacterized by unique environmental, historical and architectura] resources; 29 �t�—�'e-�e�eef-t�e-�i"w�fea�zEien�sxri#a� 30 ��gjAlong advanced speed arteries, to promote the safety, convenience and enjoyment of public travel, to protect 31 the public investment in highway beautification, and to preserve and enhance the natural scenic beauty or the 32 aesthetic features and roadways in scenic and adjacent areas; 33 ��kj To reduce the number of nonconforming signs in the � ci , particulazly billboards; 34 �1(ij To control the quality of materials, construction, electrification and maintenances of all signs; and 35 �k�}j To provide for the administration of this chapter„ar� 36 �k. T.. ..�,...:A,. .......,it:�,,.. C �..:,.I..+:....� ,.FF1.,. «« ....:..:...... ..F46:.. ,.1.,.«a,..- An ordinance amending Leg. Code Chapter 64, Signs, revising and updating existing language, adding new language regarding signs with dynamic display, removing redundant language regazding billboards with dynamic display, and removing obsolete language regarding electronic message signs. 09-1015 37 Sec. 64.104. B. 38 , , 39 40 , 41 ' 42 , 43 44 ,` 45 , 46 s,.Ftl,,, 4:IIl.�„�,l F ..o e � 47 Sec. 64.107. E. 48 . 49 Sec. 64108 F 50 Flashing sign. An illuminated sign on which the illumination is not kept stationary or constant in intensity or color 51 at all times when the sign is in use. t�t Si�ns with dynamic disQlav and time and/or temperature si ns are �'°��;� 52 �essage-s+g�-is not considered to be a flashing signs. 53 Sec. 64.121. S. 54 Si n with dynamic displav. An�i n ca�able of dis�la�q words svmbols, fiQUres or ima�es that can be 55 electronicallv or mechanicall�moved or chan¢ed bv remote, automatic or electronic means. Si ns �r_oviding only 56 time and/or temperature information are not considered to be si¢ns with dyoamic displav for regulatorv purposes. 57 Sec. 64.302. Nonconforming advertising signs; conversion to billboard with dynamic display. 58 (b) Except in a B4 or BS zoning district, a legally nonconforming, illuminated billboard may be converted to a 59 billboard with a dynamic display if the following conditions are met: 60 (2) The billboard is located at least one (1) mile measured }irieal�y along the freeway from any other 61 billboard with dynamic display designed to be read by drivers heading in the same direction on the 62 highway. 63 (c) In addition to the ott�er regulations in this chapter, a billboard with a dynamic display shall conform to the 64 following operational standards: 65 (1) All alpha-numeric copy must be at IeasY fifteen (15) inches high. 66 (2) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another 67 must be direct and immediate without any special effects. (� j Each image and message displayed musY 68 be complete in itself, and may not continue on the subsequent one. (4j Each image and message must 69 remain constant for at least twelve (12) seconds before changing to the next one. 70 Ec� wr,. ..:,.., ...... He �._:,.�.,e..�..... ..e,.o.....,... F _ ,.i,,.,. .,..a ..a .,......,.. :�:�.:i:«, . - ' - - . " . :1 - 09-1015 $1 .:4� 4H� � �.�4:��1 nY.��-an :� 4�:n n • , � •� � � 87 Sec. 64.4�5. Signs with dvnamic displaY. 88 (a) Location and orientation. Business siens with dvnamic dis�lav shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet, as 89 measured along the road, from a residential district, and shall be at ]east fifty (50) feet from a residential 90 district, measured radiall�Signs with dynamic dis�lav intended to be read from a freewav shall be at least six 91 hundred sixt�(660) feet as measured alon¢ the freeway from any other sign with dvnamic displav desiened to 92 be read by drivers headine in the same direction. Si�ns with dynamic disolay shall not interfere with traffic 93 and road safety due to placement and orientation as determined b tv he citxtraffic en¢ineer. 94 (bl Sign area For business and identification signs the area of dvnamic disolavs on an individual sien face shall 95 be no more than two hundred (2001 square feet ar�id -°°'�:^'°�' :� �'�° ^�°°°..^°a ^-°° ^F"�°:- a°^^--�:� a:°^'^. 96 ^� *"°* *'�° dvnamic dis�laYS �ay shall occupyno more than twent�(20) nercent of the total allowable si�naee 97 of the �ro�erty. The remaininQ eiehtv BO) oercent of the total allowable si ia¢e of the pronerty n�tts4 shall 98 not have the capabilitv to have dmamic dis�lavs even if not used For multi-tenant buildines the area of 99 allowable dvnamic disolavs for an individual tenant shall be nrorated unon the nercentaee of aoss floor area 100 used bv the individual tenant 101 (c) Illumination and brightness. No sien with d�amic dis�lav may exceed a maximum illumination of 03 foot 102 candles above ambient light level as measured from fifty (50) feet from the sign's face. All si ns with 103 dynamic dis�lav havin� illumination by means other than natural lieht must be equipped with an automatic 104 dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the si¢n's briehtness to complv with this 105 requirement. No sign with dmamic displa�ay be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the 106 effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device, signal or the safety of the �ublic, or located where it would do 107 so as determined bv the citytraffic engineer. If there is a violation of the briehtness standards. the adjustment 108 must be made within one (1� business dav upon notice of non-compliance from the city, 109 � Ma�nctdon. SiQns with dynamic display must be desiened and ec�uiQped to freeze the sien face in one 110 position if a malfunction occurs. Signs with dy�amic dis�lav must also be equinped with a means to ll 1 immediately disconYinue the dis�lav if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator musY immediately turn 112 off the display when notified bv the citv that it is not com�l i��with the standards of this ordinance. 1 13 (e) Image characteristdcs duration and transition. The following standards shall ap�ly to ima�e duration, 114 transition, and other characteristics of siqns with dmamic dis�lav. Additional district-specific restrictions aze I 15 contained in Sec. 64.502 and 64.503. 116 (1) Except at �rofessional sport facilities, signs with dvnamic dis�lay that aze oriented towards the �ublic 117 right of way_shall not include movine video ima�es. 118 (21 Business and identification siens with dynamic dis�lay may either have stable text and/or stable imaees, 119 or they ma�have sarollin� text and/or scrollin�aees. Signs with dynamic display which contain 120 stable text and/or stable ima eg s may not chan�e their text or imaQe more than once everv twelve f I2) 121 seconds. SiQns with dvnamic display which contain scrollinQ text and/or scrolline images mav not scrol] 122 at a rate faster than one (1) word per second, where words contain an averaue of five (5) chazacters each. 123 l3) Dvnamic disvlavs on business and identification siens within one hundred f 1001 feet of a residential use_ 124 measured from the sien to the neazest residential �ronertv line shall not scroll and shall be turned off 125 between 1 I:00 PM and 7'00 AM or after business hours. wh i lat er. 09-1015 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 � For stable text and/or stable images. the h�ansition from one static disnlav to another must be direct and immediate without any s�ecial effects exce�t for fadin� and dissolvinQ that takes less than one (1) second� (51 Dvnamic disnlav text on business and identification siens �°�"'� a�m°--�:� a:^� --�..°« siL be monochromatic Dvnamic disnlav images ^- ��° •- �"� a.-°-^:� a:�- mav be full color (6)�Si ns with dmamic dis I�ay shall not emit sound except for those at dnve-through sales and services as allowed under secrion 65.513. �71 Other modes of disnla� messaees are orohibited. Modes which cause the messape to flash are prohibited. 135 Sec. 64.420. Advertising signs. 136 (b) Professional sports facility. At a professional sports facility with permanent seatmg for more than ten thousand 137 (10,000) spectators and located in a B4-BS Business or IR-I2 Industnal zone, one (1) or two (2) advertising 138 signs are pemutted as an accessory use subject to the following standards: 139 (6) For signs with dynamic displav �'°^'-'�-�° -�°°°°��'�^°-a°, the modes of display of inessages shall 140 conform to the requirements in section 64.405 6^ �nnn..vcv,.� �i.,..w:..,....,.ao,. .._,..,,,...o.....:�va 141 Sec. 64.502. RL through RM3 residential districts. 142 (a) 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Identification signs: (4) For pazks, community centers, and religious, civic, educational or philanthropic institurions, one (1) identificarion sign, not exceeding a total of thirty (30) square feet in azea for each street frontage, and one (1) bulletin board not exceeding a total of thirty (30) square feet in area. Such bulletin board signs may �,� °?��`:�::�u?'.; �'-.: :s��'.. .� ;:, �,.� �::..:'. :.,� :.�. . ..a.., "�n� be siens wrth d mamic displav, which shall be monochromatic shall not scroll or chan¢e their dis�lays faster than every twenty (20) minutes, and shall be tumed off between 10�00 PM and 7:00 AM. (7) Siens with dynamic disolav are not permitted in residenrial zonine districts excent as �rovided in Sec 64.502(al(4). 151 Sec. 64.503. TNl--TN3 traditional neighborhood and OS--BC�1 business districts. 152 (a) 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Business and identi acation signs: (1) The sum of the gross surface display area in square feet of all business and identification signs on a lot shall not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage, or seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever is greater. (2) No business or identifioation sign shall be located in a required yard except for one freestanding sign. Freestanding signs may project into the public right-of-way up to eighteen (18) inches. (5) � a�'� Dynamic displavs shall be monochromatic shall not scroll or chan¢e their displavs faster than everv twenty (201 minutes, and shall be turned off between 11:00 PM and 7•00 AM or after business hours, whichever is later 161 Sec. 64.504. � B2--B3 business and IR industrial districts. 162 (a) 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Business and identi�cation signs: (5) In the B2 dish'ict �a;=°..ia�*'� dynamic displavs shall be monochromatic if located within one hundred (1001 feet of a residential use measured from the sien to the nearest residential nrone*rv line shall not scroll or chanee their disnlays faster than everv twentv (201 minutes and shall be tumed off between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM ar after business hours, whichever is later T�«�; � y� ;;�„ � ��;;�,� v� :.g. �:b.. � r„t,;w:...a � R� d' tri t 'd a w i �.i� V r b b b bY > ' a:�..:...� .....,.._ «,.� � ,,,....:__ ,.,....,:.:�__. . 09-1015 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ..- •-- - :- -.-:.-: -- -:-- - -- - - •:• -•- .<- •-- :- -- y r__ ... . :' - ' ' '"' ' " _'. " '_ " ' " ' •' � " ' " _' ' "' ' " . . . ..- - - •• --••- - . _. -• -- ••- •- • -- ----- �-- Y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r_e.+a:+�:ne�tr.r� .TSZ�e,s�..� _ - - - • - -- - • - •- : - . _ .._ . , _. "- - - - - • - - - - - - � 182 Sec. 64.505. B4—BS business districts. 183 (a) Business and identi zcation signs: 184 185 a :........... ..o,..:,... �n cn�i.,vc� 186 Sec. 64.506. Il--I3 industrial districts. 187 (a) 188 189 190 Business and identi tcation signs: - - - - - - � _, �, Section 2 � 191 This ordinance amending Chapter 64 of the Legislative Code shall become effective tturty (30) days after its 192 passage, approval, and publication. ��tP�F�� Jp� � � 101� Yeas Na s Absent Bostrom Carter ./ Hazris Helgen Lantry Stark Thune � Adopted by Date co�,��i: �a/d�i/dy Adoption Certified by Co il Secretary By: � Approved by te Mayor: Requested by Deputment of: � Form Approved by Ciry Attorney By: i . s: � _ y � i �,� . � . � . � � r � � �f � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Gre Sheet � ��—llJl�i .. . � • i DepartmentlOffice/Council: Date Initiated: PE _Planning&ECOnomic Z7AUG2009 Green Sheet NO: 3077776 Development � Contact Person & Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person g Init �� i _ a � i/Dat g Emily Goodman � 0 Iannin & Economic Develo m¢ �D lawnn�+r j IJ X/�� 266-6551 1 lannin & Economic Develo me DirectodC. Bedor �}� �� Assign 2 i Attorne Gl' Attome ��6� Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 a or's Office Ma or/Assismnt For Routing 4 ouncil Ci Council Doc. Type: ORDINANCE Order 5 i Clerk Ci Clerk E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Emily 600dman Contact Phone: 266-655'I Total # of Signature Pages � (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approve ordinance amending Chapter 64 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code regarding signs with dynamic display. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Fotiowing Questions: � Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/frtn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain ail yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Existing sign regulations in Chapter 64 have recently been updated to xegulate billboazds with dynamic display. These proposed amendments update the xegulations for all signs with dynamic display. The Planning Commisson held a public heazing on the amendments to Chapter 64 on April 24, 2009, made further revisions based on testimony received, and is recommending the revised amendments to the City Council for adoption. AdvanWges If Approved: Chapter 64 of the Zoning Code is updated regaring signs with dynamic display. f E G��,`�• � RPre' ��.r�:.�'�� Disadvantages If Approved: SE� �`� Z�� None � i �:. '3� .. "c � '� '�` M^Y'�^a` Disadvantages If Not Approved: Chapter 64 of the Zoning Code will not be brought up to date reflecting regulation of signs with dynamic display. Total Amount of Trensaction: $0.00 CosURevenue Budgeted: N Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) August 27, 2009 10:58 AM Page 1 09-1015 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher 8. Co/eman, Mayor Date: To: From: Subject: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Q & ECONOMIC o»�...�. DEVELOPMENT Cecile Bedor, Director 25 West Fourth Sfreet Telephone: 651-266-6565 SaintPaul,MN55>02 Facsimile:651-228-3261 November 19, 2009 President Lantry and Members of the City Council Emily Goodman, AIIan Torstenson Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance: Issues Raised at 10l21/09 Public Hearing 1. Distance between signs with dynamic display and billboards with dynamic display. Testimonv. At the April 24, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing on the draft Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance, David Baker (Business Review Council), Adam Skare (Daktronics, Inc.), and Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) testified that they do not believe that signs with dynamic display intended to be read from highways should have to be six hundred sixty (660) feet from billboards with dynamic display. Conversely, the Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Use Committee), and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) supported the proposed distance requirement between signs with dynamic display and billboards with dynamic display, and called for the sign code to be symmetrical. That is, if no sign with dynamic display can be less than 660 feet from a biliboard with dynamic display, then no billboard with dynamic display should be allowed within 660 feet of sign with dynamic display. (Relates to Sec. 64.405(a)) The Saint A�thony Park Community Council reiterated their testimony on this in their October 15, 2009, letter to the City Council. Paula Maccabee, in her testimony at the October 21, 2009, City Council public hearing, expressed concern about the potential negative impact of this requirement on businesses. She suggested that affected businesses within 660 feet should be notified before a billboard is converted to dynamic display. Comment. The code should be internally consistent. Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Oufdoor Advertising Signs (AASHTO, 2009) states, "Governments or roadway operating authorities should establish minimum longitudinal spacing requirements for [dynamic display sings] such that an approaching driver is not faced with two or more DBB displays within his field of view at the same time. This minimizes the risk of distraction and ensures that a flashing effect (that may be caused by two [or more] different signs cycling through messages on different programs) will not occur" In response to testimony from Scenic Saint Paul and Districts 12 and 14 on this, the Planning Commission recommended an edit to make the code symmetrical, and this was incorporated into the October 21, 2009, City Council Public Hearing draft. Recommendation. Keep the changes on this recommended by the Planning Commission in response to testimony from Scenic Saint Paul and the District 12 and 14 Community Councils. 09-1015 2. Number of signs with dynamic display on a zoning lot. Testimonv. In their testimony before the Planning Commission in April, the District 12 and 14 Community Councils and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that no more than one sign with dynamic display should be allowed on a zoning lot. The Saint Anthony Park Community Council reiterated their testimony on this in their October 15, 2009, letter to the City Council. Comment. Because zoning lots in the City of Saint Paul vary so dramatically in their size, the Planning Commission recommended that it would not be reasonable to permit only one sign with dynamic display per zoning lot. For example, an entire shopping center may be on only one zoning lot. Recommendation. No change from the Planning Commission recommendation. 3. Historic districts. Testimonv. In their testimony before the Planning Commission in April, the Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council), and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that no sign with dynamic display be permitted in a historic district without the approval of the Heritage Preservation Commission. District 12 reiterated their testimony in their October 15, 2009, letter to the City Council. Comment. �n response to testimony from Scenic Saint Paul and Districts 12 and 14 on this, the Planning Commission noted that this is already the case. Recommendation. No change from the P{anning Commission recommendation. 4. Sign area. Testimonv. At the April 24, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing on the draft Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance, Greg Rendall and Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) said that signs with dynamic display should not be limited to 20% of total allowable sign area because other illuminated signs are not so limited. Adam Skare (Daktronics, Inc.) suggested that the business owner should determine how much dynamic display to use, pointing out that by limiting the size of a dynamic display, the sign could be more difficult to read. The Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Use Committee), and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that the size of the dynamic display should be based on a percentage of an individual sign face, not the total allowable signage on the lot. The Saint Anthony Park Community Council reiterated their testimony on this in their October 15, 2009, letter to the City Council. Councilmember Thune has also expressed concern about the allowable area of an individual dynamic display, and the area of dynamic displays for an individual tenant in a multi-tenant building. (Relates to Sec. 64.405(b)) Comment. Signs with dynamic display can cause driver distraction and have greater impact than other illuminated signs. It is therefore reasonable that they should be limited to a portion of total allowable sign area. It is also reasonable that all of an individual sign be dynamic; a regulation that would encourage someone to install a larger sign just so the dynamic portion of it can be larger seems counterproductive. For large sites, it may be useful to have a limit to the area of dynamic displays on an individual sign face. For multi-tenant buildings, prorating the area of allowable dynamic displays for an individual tenant on the percentage of gross floor area used by the tenant would facilitate administration of the ordinance. Recommendation. Change Sec. 64.405(b) as follows: 09-1015 remaininq eiqhN (80) percent of the total allowable sianaqe of the propertv sa�as! shall not have the capabilitv to have dvnamic displavs even if not used For multi-tenant buildinas. the area of allowable dvnamic disolavs for an individual tenant shall be ororated uoon the oercentaae of aross floor area used bv the individual tenant. 5. 11{umination and Brightness Discussion. Councilmember Thune expressed concern about the illumination level of the signs, citing the Sremer Bank sign controversy. Comment. The October 21, 2009, City Council Public Hearing draft allows signs with dynamic display to have a maximum illumination level of only 0.3 foot candles above ambient light fevel, which is 2.7 foot candles less than the illumination level allowed by the current code. Recommendation. No change. 6. Duration, transition, and other characteristics. Testimonv. Saint Anthony Park Community Council and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that scrolling be prohibited. Councilmember Stark noted that some industrial areas, such as in District 12, are becoming increasingly residential, and maybe signs with dynamic display that are close to residential uses in such areas shouldn't be treated so differently from those in more restrictive districts. Comment. In response to testimony from Scenic Saint Paul and the District 12 and 1A Community Councils, the Planning Commission recommended that it would be appropriate to ban scrolling in residential, TN, and OS-B2 business districts, while permitted them in other districts, a change that was reflected in the October 21, 2009, City Council Public Hearing Draft. Recommendation. In addition to the changed recommended by the Planning Commission in response to testimony from Scenic Saint Paul and the District 12 and 14 Community Councils, amend Sec. 64.405(e) to add a new (3) as follows, and adjust subsequent numbers accordingly: whichever is later. Duration, transition, and other characteristics: color. Testimonv. In their testimony before the Planning Commission in April, the Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council), and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that muted red text on a black background shou{d be the only permissible color combination. District 12 reiterated their testimony in their October 15, 2009, letter. Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) argued that color should not be restricted at all. At the October 21, 2009, City Council Public Hearing, Adam Skare (Daktronics, Inc.) said that the monochromatic text requirements should be clarified to allow the name of a business or institution to be in their logo color (yellow for the �ame "NAPA", for examQle. (Relates to Sec. 64.405 (e)(5)) Comment. Although there is research that indicates that color is an aspect of driver distraction, none of the research examined by staff seems to go into greater detail than that or speculate about which colors are mpre distracting than others. Permitting only monochromatic text minimizes driver distraction while allowing sign owners the freedom to choose the color. The ordina�ce intent is to apply the color limitation only to the dynamic display portion of a sign. Recommendation. Amend Sec. 64.405(e)(5) to clarify the intent as follows: 3 09-1015 (5) Dvnamic disolav text on business and identification sians �:::n��a.' ^s,,;�,=�: E shall be monochromatic. Dvnamic disolav imaqes a;-�::;t� � mav be full color. 8, Regulations in B-2 zoning district. Testimonv. Saint Anthony Park Community Council and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that signs with dynamic display be prohibited in the 62 zoning district. Conversely, David Baker (Business Review Council) supported allowing signs with dynamic display in the B2 district at the Planning Commission public hearing. Comment. Signs with dynamic display are permitted in residential districts. The Planning Commission found that with the restrictions proposed in new Sec. 64.405 for signs with dynamic display, and with additional restrictions as an intermediary step between the levef of restriction for B3 — 65 and industrial districts and residential, TN, and OS-B1 business districts, they would fit the intent and purpose of the B2 district. Recommendation. If the City Council would like to place additional restrictions on signs with dynamic display in B2 districts that are proximate to residential districts to make the restrictions the same for such signs as in TN and OS-BC business districts, amend Sec. 64.504(5) to read: (5) In the 62 district, sigr�s-w+t# dynamic displays shall be monochromatic if located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential use, measured from the sian to the nearest residential use oropertv line. shall not scroll or change their displays faster than every twenty (20) minutes and shall be turned off between 11:OOPM and 7:OOAM or after business hours, whichever is later. 9. Window signs. Testimonv. Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) testified that she would like the ordinance or a future ordinance to address the issue of dynamic display signs in windows that are oriented toward the street. Comment. Scenic Saint Paul also raised this issue at the April 24, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing on the draft Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance. In response, the Planning commission noted that the Zoning Code does not regulate signs inside of buildings. Sign permits are not required for the signs businesses use inside their stores. The code encourages store front commercial buildings to have windows facing the street and even requires it in certain areas. We have pushed businesses to make these windows people can see through, so this adds to the life of the street, but have not then also tried to further regulate what businesses can do inside the windows. The Planning Commission recommended no change in this regard. Because changing the ordinance to add regulations and a permit requirement for signs with dynamic display located on the inside of windows would be a significant change from the draft ordinance for which the public hearing was held, the City Attorney has advised that a separate public hearing would be required for this such a change. Zoning administration staff in the Department of Safety and Inspections have note that because permits are not currently required for window signs, it would be difficult to determine with certainty which signs were pre-existing and grandfathered in. They also note that in contrast to external signs, window signs do not require professional installation by licensed sign contractors who are aware of the need for permits and the regulations, and instead would often simply be plugged in be by business owners unlikely to be aware of the applicable sections of the City Code. This would result in potentially costly and time-consuming enforcement on a complaint basis. Recommendation. If the City Council wished to add a permit requirement and apply sign ordinance regulations to signs with dynamic display located on the inside of windows, after a separate public hearing, Sec. 64.203 Permits, could be amended to read: � 09-1015 [adjust subsequent letters accordingly] 10. Exemptions. Comment. In preparing this memo, staff realized an amendment that is needed in Sec. 64.204 to clarify that sign permits are not required for street and traffic control signs. This is beyond the scope of the public hearing draft Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance. Recommendation. After a separate public hearing, amend Sec. 64.204 Exemptions as follows, adjusting subsequent letters accordingly: � Siqns of the ciiv. countv state and federai qovernments and subdivisions and aqencies thereof that provide orientation, direction, or traffic control information. 11. Related sign issues for Planning Commission. Comment. Councilmember Thune expressed interest in directing the Planning Commission to study and recommend amendments to Chapter 64, Signs, pertaining to the aforementioned issues of window signs and exemptions, and also the way the gross surface display area of double-faced and V-shaped signs is measured (Sec. 64.401(m)), and the illumination level currently allowed for signs generally. Recommendation. Direct the Planning Commission to study and recomme�d amendments to Chapter 64 pertaining to these issues. � Council File # 09-1015 Green Sheet # 3077776 ORDINANCE OF SAI,AIT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by An ordinance amending Leg. Code Chapter 64, Signs, revising and updating existing language, adding new language regarding signs with dynamic dispfay, and removing redundant language regarding biliboards with dynamic display. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN Section 1 9 That Legislative Code Chapter 64 is hereby amended as follows: 10 11 Sec. 64.101. Intent and purpose. 12 The purpose of this chapter is as follows: 13 � To requlate the time place and manner in which siqns mav be exhibited 14 � To protect the riqht of information transmittal; 15 �{a3To promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community; 16 �{b}To encourage a concern for the visual environment which makes the city a more desirable place to 17 live; 18 �(s}To identify and promote business and industry in the city; 19 �f {�} To reduce hazards which may be caused by signs projecting over public rights-of-way; 20 �{e}To protect open space and areas characterized by unique environmental, historical and architectural 21 resources; 2'z /F� T.. nr..4�.r4 4h.. ..L.� ..F '..��S�f� 23 �(g}Along advanced speed arteries, to promote the safety, convenience and enjoyment of public travel, 24 to protect the public investment in highway beautification, and to preserve and enhance the natural 25 scenic beauty or the aesthetic features and roadways in scenic and adjacent areas; 26 ��#} To reduce the number of nonconforming signs in the is�y c�, particularly billboards; 27 �fi-} To control the quality of materials, construction, electrification and maintenances of all signs; and 28 �(}} To provide for the administration of this chapter„-aad ' L9 /��1 T '.J I4' { ' �}' f 4h '' F 44�' h 1 r C � i cP�rvviac�i.`icrt� or�i�u 30 Sec. 64.104. B. 31 32 33 34 . 35 36 37 , , 09-1015 � - - - - � - -- - - 1 i . � _ . . .. - ' - ' . �r.e��nnr.��u_rtrsa�aar.r.r.�. - - - - - - - •• -' rsar_�r_rsrr:+r_ . 43 Sec. 64.108 F 44 Flashing sign. An illuminated sign on which the i(lumination is not kept sfationary or constant in intensify 45 or color at all times when the sign is in use. Aa Siqns with dvnamic displav and time and/or temqerature 46 sictns are °'°^'�^^�^ ^�°°°^^° ° '° not considered to be a flashing signs. 47 Sec, 64.121. 5. 48 Siqn with dvnamic disnlav. Anv siqn capable of displavinq words. svmbols fiqures or imaqes that can be 49 electronicallv or mechanicallv moved or chancted bv remote, automatic or electronic means. Siqns 50 providinq onlv time and/or temperature information are not considered to be sipns with dvnamic displav for 51 recaulatorv pumoses. 52 Sec. 64.302. Nonconforming advertising signs; conversion to biliboard with dynamic display. 53 (b} Except in a 64 or 65 zoning district, a(ega(ly nonconforming, illuminated billboard may be converted 54 to a billboard with a dynamic display if the following conditions are met: 55 56 57 58 (c) 59 60 (2) The billboard is located at least one (1) mile measured liaeal4y along the freeway from any other billboard with dynamic display designed to be read by drivers heading in the same direction on the highway. In addition to the other regulations in this chapter, a billboard with a dynamic display shall conform to the following operational standards: (1) All alpha-numeric copy must be at least fifteen {15) inches high. 61 (2) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display 62 to another must be direct and immediate without any special effects. � Each image and 63 message displayed must be complete in itself, and may not continue on the subsequent one. 64 {4) Each image and message must remain constant for at least twelve (12) seconds before 65 changing to the ne� one. .. 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 09-1015 �' - - - - _:- 83 Sec. 64.405. Sictns with dvnamic displav. .� : :. :. :• .� 91 (b) Sian area. Business and identification siqns shall be restricted in the measured area of their 92 dvnamic displavs so that the dvnamic displavs mav occupv no more than twentv (20) percent of the 93 total allowable siqnape of the propertv. The remaininq eiqhtv (80) percent of the total allowable 94 signaqe of the propertv must not have the capabilitv to have dvnamic displavs even if not used. 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 there is a violation of the briqhtness standards, the adiustment must be made within one (1) business dav upon notice of non-compliance from the citv. L) Malfunction. Siqns with dvnamic displav must be desiqned and epuipped to freeze the siqn face in this ordinance. 109 Le) Imaqe characteristics, duration, and transition. The followina standards shail apaiv to imaqe 110 duration, transition, and other characteristics of siqns with dvnamic displav. Additional distric 111 sqecific restrictions are contained in Sec. 64.502 and 64.503. 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 (1) Except at professional sport facilities, siqns with dvnamic displav that are oriented towards the qublic riqht of wav shali not include movinq video imaqes. � Business and identification sipns with dynamic dispiav mav either have stable text andior stable imaqes, or thev'hnav have scrollinq text and/or scrollinq imactes. Siqns with dvnamic 120 {3) For stable text and/or stabie imactes, the transition from one static disqlav to another must be 121 direct and immediate without anv special effects except for fadinq and dissolvina that takes 122 less than one (1) second: 123 �4) Text on siqns with dvnamic displav must be monochromatic. Images on siqns with dvnamic 124 displav mav be full color. 125 (51 Siqns with dvnamic displav shall not emit sound except for those at drive-throuah sales and 126 services as allowed under section 65.513. residential district, measured radiallv. Siqns with dvnamic displav intended to be read from a freewav shal! be at least six hundred sixtv (660) feet as measured alonq the freewav from anv other with an automatic dimmer control or other mechanism that automaticalfv controls the sipn's briphtness to comqlv with this requirement. No siqn with dvnamic displav mav be of such intensitv words contain an averaqe of five (5) characters each. 09-1015 127 (6) Other modes of disqlavinct messaaes are prohibited. Modes which cause the messaqe to fiash 128 are prohibited. 129 Sec. 64.420. Advertising signs. 130 (b) Professional sports facility. At a professional sports facility with permanent seating for more than ten 131 thousand (10,000) spectators and located in a B465 Business or IR-12 Industrial zone, one (1) or 132 two (2) advertising signs are permitted as an accessory use subject to the following standards: 133 (6) For siqns with dvnamic displav �'°~'~^^•^ �~°°°�~° ~^°~�'° the modes of display of inessages 134 shall conform to the requirements in section 64.405 �" �nn��-.v��..� ��.,��,..,. ..,.,,�e� .,.e ..,.+ 135 per�iEEed. 136 Sec. 64.502. RL through RM3 residential districts. 137 (a) Identification signs: 138 (4) For parks, community centers, and religious, civic, educational or philanthropic institutions, one 139 (1) identification sign, not exceeding a total of thirty (30) square feet in area for each street 140 frontage, and one (1) bulletin board not exceeding a total of thirty (30) square feet in area. 141 Such bulletin board signs may'^^��° �'°^' ^^ ^�^^^°^h�°'°"' � ' °�^° ^^� f^'�° ;^ ^a 142 ^� �* °^�^��„ be siqns with dvnamic displav, which shall be monochromatic, shall not 143 scrol! or chanqe their displavs faster than everv twentv (20) minutes, and shall be tumed off 144 between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM 145 (7) Siqns with dvnamic disalav are not qermitted in residential zoninq districts except as qrovided 146 in 5ec. 64.502(a)(4). 147 Sec. 64.503. TN1--TN3 traditional neighborhood and OS—BC�-1- business districts. 148 (a) Business and identification signs: 149 (1) The sum of the gross surface display area in square feet of all business and identification signs 150 on a lot shall not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage, or seventy-five (75) square 151 feet, whichever is greater. 152 (2} No business or identificafion sign shall be located in a required yard except for one 153 freestanding sign. Freestanding signs may project into the public right-of-way up to eighteen 154 (18) inches. 155 (6) Siqns with dvnamic displaV shall be monochromatic. 156 faster than everv twentv (20) minutes, and shall be ti 157 or after business fiours, whichever is later. 158 Sec. 64.504. �G B2--B3 business and IR indusirial districts. 159 (a) Business and ident�cation signs: 160 (5) In the 62 district, siqns with dvnamic disolav shall not scroll or chanqe their disolavs faster thar 161 everv twentv (20) minutes and shall be tumed off between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM or after 162 business hours. whichever is later. �'°^*-^^;^ ^�°°°^^° ° �� ° ^-^�;"�+°�+ c.,.... .�.. Qr i63 164 . 165 _. ....:..,,,±e,� 7.. Ihe .lict.:.dc ^ ...1e.4he F_Iln . .. _...JY °_ � _.. _.. _ " ' ,.. .. .':� = _. , �� _ ' _ "• " ' " _ ' � ' ' ' ' _ _' 09-1015 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 �- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - � - -- ---- -- - - - -- --- --°�._„_,.-•o._� - - --- - --- - -- ` - - - - - - - - - 179 Sec. 64.505. 64--BS business districts. 180 (a) Business and identification signs: I : - - - - - - - - - � - ' -- �-�- - - - -- - - ° ---- 183 Sec. 64.506. 11--13 industrial districts. 184 (a) Business and identification signs: 185 186 R�,��+.�,.�� ,.+,,,, a� Gnni.,�ic� 187 188 189 190 Section 2 This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage, approval, and publication. Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by Mayor: Date Re u s� dJyy,�e�� ent of: , ,.�L G B Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: Approved �C A By: 6✓. W ,�.s..s—.. 7 ��( ' t9 Approved b ay for ubmission Co cil By: � Adopted by Council: Date 09-1015 city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 09-53 date a�aust2,,zoos Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on March 27, 2009, released a draft Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance for public review, and set a public hearing forApril 24, 2009; a�d WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was published pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, Subd. 3, and mailed to the early notification list and othef interested parties; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance was conducted by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2009, at which all persons present were allowed to testify; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission referred the proposed ordinance to the Neighborhood Planning Committee for consideration, review of the public testimony, and recommendation; and WHEREA5, the Neighborhood Planning Committee, on August 12, 2Q09, forwarded its recommendations to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the pubiic testimony and the recommendations of the Neighborfiood Planning Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, under the provisions of § 61.8�1 of the Zoning Code and pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, that the Pianning Commission recommends to the City Council the following amendments to Chapter 64, Signs, of the Zoning Code: Sec. 64.101. Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is as follows: (a) To reaulate the time, place, and manner in which siqns mav be exhibited; (b) To protect the riqht of information transmittal; �cZFa}To promote the public health, safety and generai welfare of the community; ��b}To encourage a concern for the visual environment which makes the city a more desirable place to live; f�{s}To identify and promote business and industry in the city; �f �} To reduce hazards which may be caused by signs projecting over public rights-of-way; �,qZ�To protect open space and areas characterized by unique environmental, historical and architectural resources; cf�-��esE �„e-�igr'^R e�-infer�na�ien�ansaii4Eal. moved by Wencl seconded by in favor Unanimous against 09-1015 File # Piaoning Commission Resolution Page 2 of 5 �(g}Along advanced speed arteries, to promote the safety, convenience and enjoyment of pubtic travel, to protect the public investment in highway beautification, and to preserve and enhance the natural scenic beauty or the aesthetic features and roadways in ssenic and adjacent areas; �(#} To reduce the number of nonconforming signs in the +st� ci , particularly billboards; �l+} Ta control the quality of materials, construction, electrification and maintenances of all signs; and �{}} To provide for the administration of this chapter„aad, /Ll T.. .. .d.l.. .. ..IL:e�. i....ri..I..af.. ..f iL.e .. n41L."c. ..L.....+e. $0C. 64.��4. B. , � Sec. 64.107. E. �� Sec. 64.108 F Flashing sign. An illuminated sign on which the illumination is not kept stafionary or constant in intensity or color at all times when the sign is in use. Aa Siqns with dvnamic displav and time and/or temnerature siqns are °'^^`•^^;^ ^�°°°°^° � °° not considered to be a flashing signs. Sec. 64.121. S. Sian with dvnamic displav. Anv siqn caaable of displavinq words, svmbols, fiqures or imaqes that can be (b) Except in a B4 or B5 zoning district, a legally nonconforming, illuminated billboard may be converted to a billboard with a dynamic dispiay if the following conditions are met: (2) The billboard is located at least one (1) mile measured Iiaeal4� along the freeway from any other billboard with dynamic display designed to be read by drivers heading in the same direcYion on the highway. (c) In addition to the other regulations iri this chapter, a billboard with a dynamic display shall conform to the following operational standa�ds: (1) All alpha-numeric copy must be at least fifteen (15) inches higti. (2) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be direct and immediate withaut any special effecfs. (�} Each image and message displayed must be complete in itself, and may not continue on the subsequent one. (4} Each image and message must remain constant for at least twelve (12) seconds before Sec. 64.302. Nonconfortning advertising signs; conversion to billboard with dynamic display. 09-1015 File # Planning Commission Resofution Page 3 of 5 changing to the ne� one. r . _ _ . .. - - _ • _ - - - - - - - - frs�r_erzr.r_�r_ _n:nscr_anr�_n�n r_a��r_�+r�- - - - :r.0 _ �r_nm�arnsr.�nnzr.r_n - -�•,: • _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Sec. 64.405. Sians witfi dvnamic disalav. (a) Location and orientation. Busi�ess sians with dvnamic displav shall be at least seventv-five (751 (b) Siqn area. Business and identification sictns shall be restricted in the measured area of their - - - - - - - - - - - i:r:rs�rnrer.rs_sfzr.:i�er_�r�seranr_�r_rse. - - - - • - - - - - - 09-1015 File # Planning Commission Resolution Page 4 of 5 (11 Except at professional sport facilities, siqns with dvnamic disqlav that are oriented towards the pubtic riaht of wav shali not include movinq video imaqes. scrollinq text and/or scrollina imaaes mav not scroll at a rate faster than one f 1) word ner second, where words contain an averaae of five (51 characters each. !3) For stable text and/or stable imaaes, the transition from one static disolav to another must be direct and immediate without anv soecial effects exceot for fadincl and dissolvinq fhat takes less than one (1) second; (4) Text on sipns with dvnamic disalav must be monochromatic. Imaqes on siqns with dvnamic disalav mav be full color. (51 SiAns with dvnamic displav shall not emit sound exceot for those at drive-throuah sales and services as allowed under section &5.513. Sec. 64.420. Advertising signs, (b) Professional sports facility. At a professional sports facility with permanent seating for more than ten thousand (10,000) spectators and located in a B4-B5 Business or IR-12 Industrial zone, one (1) or two (2} advertising sig�s are permitted as an accessory use subject to the following standards: (6) For sians with dvnamic disolav °'^^'�^^�^ ^�°°°'^° ``^°'�'° the modes of display of inessages shall conform to the requirements in section 64.405 . �ed• Sec. 64.502. RL through RM3 residential districts. (a) Ident�cation signs: (4) For parks, community centers, and religious, civic. educational or philanthropic institutions, one (1 j identification sign, not exceeding a tota! of thirty (30) square feet in area for each street frontage, and one (1) bulletin board not exceeding a total of thirty (30) square feet in area. Such bulletin board signs may ��•� ^'^^'•^^'^�"•• �M-^^^^"'^'°," �„+ ��.,�� ..... s..ae v., �^�' ^� �' ^^�^" ^� �'�^" be sictns with dvnamic disAlav, which shall be monochromatic, shall not between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Sec. 64,503. TN1—TN3 traditional neighborhood and OS—BC� business d'estricts. (a) Business and ident�cation signs: (1) , The sum of the gross surface display area in square feet of al! business and identification signs on a lot shall not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage, or seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever is greater. 09-1015 File # Planning Commission Resolution Page 5 of 5 (2) No business or identification sign shall be located in a required yard except for one freestanding sign. Freestanding signs may project into the public right-of-way up to eighteen (18) inches. or after business hours, whichever is later. Sec. 64.504. @G 62--B3 business and IR industrial districts. (a) Business and identi�cation signs: (5) in the B2 district. siqns with dvnamic displav shall no -- -• - -- - -- -- ° --• -- -•- - -- - - -- . - - --- - - - -�; - - -- -- - ` - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - --- � - Sec. 64.505. B4--65 business districts. (a) Business and identification signs: Sec. 64.506. 11--13 industrial districts. (a) Business and identification signs: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs the Planning Administrator to forward the Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance, other appropriate documentation, and this resolution, to the Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption. 09-1015 Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Bonlevard West �RA� � Minutes August 21, 2009 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, August 21, 2009, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Lu, Morton, Thao, Wencl; and Present: Messrs. Alton, Bellus, Goodlow, Gordon, 7ohnson, Kramer, Mazgulies, Schertler, Spaulding, and Ward. Commissioners Mmes. *Porter, *Smitten, and Messrs. *Commers, *Nelson. Absent: *Excused Also Present: Donna Dnm�mond, Planning Administrator; Patricia James, Kate ReIlly, Emily Goodman, and Sonja Butler, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of minutes August 7, 2009. MOTION: Commzssioner Farzcy moved approval of the minutes ofAugust 7, 2009. Commissioner Jahnson seconded the motion. The mofrnn carried unanimously on a vaice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Alton announced that this is Commissioner Bellus' last meeting, as he has resigned &om the Planning Commission. Chair Alton read a resolution honoring Commissioner Bellus for his service on the Planuing Cominission. James Bellus thanked the Commission and made a few comments. MO'ITON: Comnaissioner Wencl moved approval of the resolydion ho,noring Commissinner Bellus. Commissioner ponneZly-Cohen seconded tiee moBon. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair Alton reminded the commissioners of two events regarding the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water conference. There is an event on Friday, September 25, 2009 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Landscape Arboretum in Chaska and an evening reception before that on Thursday, September 24, 2009 for local appointed leaders from 7:00-9:00 p.m. He encouraged the commissioners to attend. 04-1015 VI. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee �g Dynamic Dis�v Sien Ordinance — Appmve resolution recommending dynanuc sign ordinance. (Emily Goodnicm, 651/266-6551) Chair Alton said that there was a public kearing held ia April aad sevetal people testified with regazd to this change to the zoning code and the Neighborhood Planning Committee considered it and made some revisions and recommendations. Emily Goodman, PED staff, said that there are two categories of major policy changes in fihe edits from the draft on Apri124'� at the public hearing. The first is a new, more concise definition that clearly includes billboazds with dynamic within the umbrella of signs with dynamic display. By classifying the billboazds with dynamic display, signs with dynamic display also invited more redundant language to be eliminated. Second aze different levels of res�iction for signs with . dynamic display in the various zoning dislricts, according to a chart that was distdbuted ' MOTION: Commirsioner lYenc[ moved the Neighborhood Plaxxing Committee's recommendalion to apprme the resolution recomrnending Dynamic Display Ordinance be adopted by G4ty CounciL The motion carried unanimously on a voice vate. Commissioner Wencl announced the_ items on the agenda for the next Neighborhood Planning Commiitee meeting on'Wednesdaq, August 26, 2009. VII. Commnnications Committee No report. VIII. Task Force Reports Commissioner Faricy reported on the Ford Task Fozce sayiug that there was an article in tfie newspaper regazding a letter that Mayor Coleman and Councilmember Harris sent to Ford, requesting that when they close the plant in January ZO10 that they retrofit it to produce a new vehicle called Transit Connect, which gets 22-25 miles per mile. What Ford does with that is unlmown, the task force has not heazd from them. Hopefully something big will come of this. IX. Old Business None X. New Bnsiness None XI. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 926 a.m. 09-1015 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher 8, Coleman, Mayor Date: To: From: Subject: August12,2009 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Q & ECOIVOMlC � DEVELOPMENT Cecife Bedor, Direcfor 25 Wesf Foutth Street Te%phone: 651-266-6565 Saint Paul, MN 56102 Facsimile: 651-228-3261 Planning Commission Neighborhood Planning Committee Public hearing testimony on the Sig�s with Dynamic Display Ordinance Background The Planning Commission held a pubiic hearing on the Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance on April 24, 2009. Five people spoke offer+ng their tes6mony on the ordinance. In addition, two letters were received. This memo summarizes the issues raised and presents committee comments and recommendations for the Commission to consider as it makes its recommendation on the Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance to City Council. An April 2009 peer-reviewed report titled "The Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs," prepared under the auspices of the Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Operations of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), under the National Gooperative Highway Research Program, is referenced frequently in this report. It can be found at http //www scenic ora/pdfslNCHRP%20Diaital%206illboard%20Reoort.odf. Additionally, please note that proposed underiines and strike-outs are indicated in this memorandum based on the draft presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2009, not currently adopted Zoning Code. Overview of public hearing testimony The testimony focused on a over dozen issue areas: definition, distance between signs with dynamic display and bitlboards with dynamic display, distance from residential district, the number of signs with dynamic display allowed in a zoning lot, window signs, location in historic districts, the percentage of tofal allowable sign area permitted to be dynamic, at what distance illumination should be measured from, what the procedure should be in the event of a malfuncfion, transition, color, scrolling, appropriateness of restricting institufions in residentiai areas, location in TN districts, and location in 82 districts. There was additional testimony relating to the background of the recommendation. Definition. Testimonv. Biif Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) suggested that the proposed definition of signs with dynamic display be changed to: °A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means ° AN AFFIItMATiVE ACTION EQUAL OPPORI'fJNITY EMPLOYER 09-1015 Committee Comment The proposed definition was based on fhe e�stirtg definition of Billboards with Dynamic Display. The simpler, user-friendly definition suggested by Mr. Amberg can be used for all signs with dynamic display, incfuding billboards, while retaining certain aspecfs of the original definifion, including the exceptions for signs that provide time and temperature information. Having a single, concise definition for ail signs with dynarnic display helps to clarify and simplify the zoning code. CommifEee Recommendation. Revise the definition for signs with dynamic display as foliows and remove now-redundant definition and regulations for billboards with dynamic display: Sec. 64.121.S. providing oniv time and/or temperature �ubtis-searise informafion � ,^°;• :^�,,;a„.,a� are not considered to be signs with dynamic display for regulatory purposes. Sec. 64.1�4. B. - • - • ••- --• - •- • • •• -••- •- .. .. .._ _.. _ °' - _ - - - ce .- - - - -e ., - (c) In addition to the other regulations in this chapter, a biilboard with a dynamic display sfiall conform to the following operational standards: (1) All alpha-numeric copy must be at least fifteen (15) inches high. (2) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be direct and immediate without any special effects. � Each image and message displayed must be complete in itself, and may not continue on the subsequent one. (A� Each image and message must remain constant for at Ieast iwe(ve (12} seconds before changing to the next one. /C\ AI 4.n L. 'n4.Fe• A...n .. v f... nlan. onA o.lc.n� v�fe .dc'F:lih. . ..........,...,....».� .�. ...��. ....� ��.� .._.�.._�. 'wh4 . M i.H.en.' :nSc� .v..riiV..l.i..e.-.�� .. ..�tinn r.f 41.ci..mL.inln� c7c�. �. .� �...�....�� ...��..�._ ...... �.."_'_ _�_._.._.. _. _._.. '_'"'_'__" _ _ • _ " _ 2 Sec. 64.302. Nonconforming advertising signs; conversion to billboard with dynamic display. 09-1015 r. 2. Distance between signs with dynamic display and billboartls w(th dynamic display. Testimonv. David Baker (Business Revfew Councll), Adam Skare (Daktronics, Inc.), and BfllAmberg (Minnesota Sign Associatfon) tesHfied that they do not belleva that signs w(th dynamic d{splay Intended to be read from highways should'have to be six hundred sixty (660) feet from biilboards with dynamic display. Conversely, the Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clsmmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Use CommiEtee), and Jeanne Weigum (Scenfc Saint Paul) supported the proposed restriction, and called foi the sign code to be symmetricai. That Is, if no sign with dynamic display can ba less than 660 feet from a biliboard with dynamic display, then no billboard wfth dynamic display should be allowed within 660 feet of aign with dynamic dfsplay. (Refates to Ssc. 84.405(a)}. Comm(ttae Comment. Tha coda should be Internaliy consistent. Safefy lmpacts of fhe Emergfig Oigttal DlsplayTechnologyforOutdoorAdvertising Slgns (AASHTO, 2009) states, "Governments or roadway opetating authoritles should estabAsh minimum bngitudinal spacing requirements for [dynamio display sings] such that an appraaching driver is not faced with hvo or more DBB displays wlthin his tield of view at the same iime. This minimizes the risk ot distraction and ensures that a flashing etfeet (that may be caused by two [or more] different signs cycling through messages on different programs) will not occur." Committea Recommendation. Add the following fo Sec. 64.302 Nonconfarming advertising signs; conversion to bf114oard with dynamtc disQlay; (b) Except in a B4 or B5 zoning district, a Iegally nonconforming, flluminated bfllboard may be converted to a billboard w(th a dynamic display if the following condttions are met: (2) The b{Ilboard Is focated at least one (1) mile measured 4kiea4ly along the freeway from any other bill6oard wfth dynamic dlsplay and at least six hundred sixtv (660) feet as measured alonq the freewav from anv stan with dvnamic disnlav designed to be read by drivers heading in the same dlrectlon on the highway. 3. Dlstance of a buslness sign with dynamic display from a resldential district. Testlmonv. Bill Amberg (Minnesota Slgn AssociaUon) su6mittad a proposal that the distance from a residential iiistrict should only be upheld ff the busi�ess sign is visible from a residential districf. (Relates to Sec. 64,A05(a)). Committee Comment, The distance requfrement is so mfnimal that the additional exception, which would be subjecBve and more time consuming to enforce, Is unnecessary. Committee Recommendation. No change. 4. Number of signs with dynamic display on a zoning lot. Testimonv. Saint Anthony Park Communfty Council, Joel Clemmar (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Use Committae), and Jeanne We�gum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that no more than one sign with dynamic display shauld be allowed on a zoning lot. 09-1015 Commiitee Comment. Because zonfng bfs in the Cfiy of Saint Paul vary so dramatically in their size, it would not be reasonable to permit only one sign with dynamic display per zoning lot, For example, an entire shopping center may be on oniy one zoning lot. Committee Recommendatfon. No change. 5. Windowsigns. Testlmonv. Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) testified that she would like the ordinance or a future ordinance to address the fssue of dynamic display signs in windows that are oriented toward the street. Committee Comment. The zoning code does not regulate signs Inside of buildings. Slgn permits are not required fo� the signs businesses use fnside their stores. The code encourages store front commercial buildings to fiave windows facing the streat and even requires It in certain areas. We have pushed businesses�o make these windows people can see through, so this adds to the Iffe of the street, but have not then also tried to further regulafe what businesses can do inside the windows. Committee Recommendation. No change, 6. Historic districts. Testimonv. Sa(ntAnthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Usa Committee), and Jeanne Weigum (Scanic Saint Paul) proposad that no sign with dynamic display be permitted ln a historic d(strlct without the approval of the Heritage Preservation Commfssion. Committee Comment. This is already the case. Commlttee Recommendation. No change. 7. Slgn area. Testimonv. Greg Rendall and Biil Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) said that signs wfth dynamic display should not be Iimited to 20% of total allowable sign area because other illumfnated sfgns are not so Iimited. Adam Skare (Daktronlcs, Inc.) suggested that the business owner should determine how much dynamic dispiay to use, pointing out that by Ifmiiing 1he shce of a dynamic display, the sign couid be more difficult to read. Safnt Anthony Park Communfty Council, Joe! Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Councll Land Use Committae),,and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that the size of the dynamic display being based on a percentage of an individuaf sign face, not the total allowabfe signage on the lot. (Relafes to Sec. 64.405(b)). Committee Comment. Slgns with dynamic display can cause driver distraction and have g�eater impact than other illuminated signs. It is therefore reasonable that they should be Iimfted to a portion of total allowable sign area. It is also reasona6le that alI of an indiv(dual sign be dynamlc; a regulatlon that would encourage someone to install a larger sign Just so the dynamfc portfon of it can 6e Iarger seems counterproductive. Commltfee Recommendatlon. No change. 8. U(um+nation and brighlness: measurement. Testimonv. Adam Skare (Daktronics, lnc.} recommended dlfferent distances irom the slgn face be used for measuring the brightness of difference sized signs: 0-100 square foot signs to be measured 100 feet ftom source, 101-350 square foot sign to be measured 150 feet from source, 351-660 square foot sign to be measured 290 feet from source, 651-100D square foot sign 10 be measured 250 feetftom source, and over 1000 square foot sign to be measured 350 feet frdm source. BiII Amberg (Minnesota S(gn 09-1015 Association) recommended that the brightness of all signs be measured one hundred (100) feet from tlie sign face. (Relates to 64.405(c)). � CommitYee Comment. A graduated standard is complicated and unnecessary. According to Safety impacts of fhe Emarging Dlgital Dlsplay Technology for OutdoorAdverttsing Signs (AASHTO, 2009}, "Because LED billboards are composed of arrays of LEDs, their surfaces are not uniform. If viewed from very close dlstances, they wiil appear as an array of bright points against a dark background. Thus, a viewing distance of approximately 50 ft is suggesfed, ..., sufficient to ensure uniformity of the dfsplay. Since light from the ambfent environmenf adds to tha recorded tuminance, measurements should not be taken at distances greater than that suggested above." Thus, proposed Sec. 64.405(c) requires that the luminance be measured 50 feet from the sign Pace. Committea Recommendation. No change. 9. Malfunction. Testimonv. Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) recommended that, in the event of a malfunction, sign owner or operators must turn off the display within forty eight (48) hours of notification, as opposed to immediately. (Relates to Sec. 64.405 (�). Committee Comment. The on-off switches should be immediately accesslble to the sign owner or operator. 7hls could be on-premise, off-premise, or (ideaily) both. 7here is no good reason not to require the display to be turned off immediately in the event of a malfunction. It could even be automatic. Committee Recommendatlon. No change. 10. Duratton, transition, and other characteristics: transition ttming. estimon . Adam Skare (Daktronics, fnc.) said that time allowances shoutd be more generous for more commercial areas. Greg Rendall and Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Associatlon) testifled that signs wlth dynamic display need muftlple frames to effectively communicate, so any regulatfons placing restrlctlons on message durations are impractical. They mainta(n that If these transition regulations musf be in place they should be different for different zoning districts, and provided proposed amendments for this. (Re(ates to 64.405(eJ(2)). Commlttee Comment. The proposed ordinance as written does have different timing sfandards for different zoning districts, as descrlbed elsewhere in this document. The sequencing that Mr. Rendall and Mr. Amberg say is Inhiblted by the timing restridions is one of the key things the ordinance is fntended to regulate. Message sequencing is among fhe most dangerous aspects of slgns with dynamic display, due to tfie Zeigamik effect The Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Tachno}ogy for Outdoor Advertising Signs (AASHTO, 2009) states that "message sequencing shoukl be prohibited.° The timing restrictions propased in the ordinance effectively do that The proposals from Mr. Rendall and Mr. Amberg fo allow transitfons every 0, 1, or 3 seconds seems fo constifufe flashing, which is prohibited in 64.401(k). Committee Recommendation. No change. 11. Duration, transitb�, and other characterlsUcs; calor. Testimonv. Sa(nt Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Councii Land Use Gommitteej, and Jeanne Weigum (Scenic Saint Paul) proposed that muted red text on a black 6ackground should 6e the oMy permissib(e color cambination. 9i11 Am6erg (Minnasota Sign Associatlon) provided new draft language suggesUng that color not be restrictad at all. (Relates fo Sec. 64.405 (e)(4))). Cammittee Commenk Although there is research that indlcates that coWr fs an aspect of drivar distraction, none of the research examined by'staff seems to go into greater detaii than that or speculate 09-1015 about whicfi colors are more distracting than others, Permitting only monochromaEic text minfmizes driver distraction while allowing sfgn owners the freedom to choose the color. Committee Recammendatton. No change. 12. Duratton, trensltlon, and other characteristtcs: scrolling. Testimonv. Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Joel Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Use Commlttee), and Jeanne We(gum (Scenlc Salnt Paulj Qroposed that scrollfng be prohibfted. Commfttee Comment Itwould be approprlate to ban scrolling in resldential, TN, and OS-62 business districts. Committee Recommendatlon. Change § 63.503 and § 63.504 to ban scrolling in TN and OS-62 districts as noted in #14 and #15 below, and change § 6A.502 (a)(4) to ban scroliing in residential districts as noted in #13 below. 13. Schools, churches, and other institutions In resldenfial districts. Testimonv. David 6aker (9usiness Review Councll) said that Institutional signs with dynamic dispiay in residentfal dfstrlcts should not faca additional restricfions. Greg Rendall and Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association) took issue wfth Ilmiting the color of text of these signs with dynamic display, the prohibition of fmages, and timiting transition to once every iweMy mfnutes, (Ralates to 64.502(a)(4}). Committee Comment. It Is appropriate to have dlfferent levels of restrictions in different zoning distrlcts, and common practice to limit bolor, images, and transitlon time in residentia{ d{stricts. For exampls, Bloomingtan's ordinance has a 20-mfnute minimum message duratbo in residenHal areas and allows only amber coiored dispiays thaf are teut-only, However, mitigation of driver distraction and impact on residential areas can still be achieved while permltting Images sign owners' discretion over color by prohibiting scroliing, fimiting transition rime, allowing oniy monochromatic dispiays, and limiting hours of operat[on. Committee Recommendation. Revise Sec. 64.502 as follows: Sec. 64.502. RL through RM3 restdenttal distrfcts. (a) fdentiftcatlon signs: (4) For parks, community centers, and religious, civic, educationaf or philanthropic institutions, one (1 } Identfflcation slgn, not exceeding a total of thirty {3�) square feet in area for each street frontage, and one (1j bulletin board not eacceeding a totat of thlrty (30) square feet in area. Such builetin board signs may be signs with dynamlc display, which shall be • •-- •- • • - • • - -. . _.. . .. . _ - - • � 09-1015 (7) Siqns with dvnamic displav are not permitted in residential zoninq districts exceot as provided in Sea 64.502(a)f4). 14. Regulations in TN Districts. Testimonv. David Baker (Business Review Council) said that signs with dynamic display should be allowed in TN Districts. (Relates fo 64.503(a)(6)). Committee Comment. Signs with dynamic display are allowed in residential districts, with more stringent restrictions than in business districts. It follows that they should also be allowed in TN districts, with similar more stringent restrictions. It is more equitable to permit signs wiih dynamic dispiay throughout fhe city, with certain zoning districts subject to more stringent restrictions than others. For example, signs with dynamic display in B3-BS business and industrial districts coufd 6e permitted subject to the restrictions prescribed in Sec. 64.405, while signs with dynamic display in TN and OS-BC districts could be permitted subject to additional restrictions similar to those in secfion 64.502(a)(4) for signs with dynamic display in residential districts. All signs with dynamic display would be subject to the restrictions in Sec. 64.405, but those in more resfictive districts could be subject to additional restrictions, as follows: 83– 85 and (ndustrial B2 Busrness DistricGS TN, OS-BC Business Residentral Districts Districts Districts Full-color images Full-color images Monochromatic Monochromatic allowed allowed images allowed images aliowed Text & images can't Text & images can't Text & images can't Text � images can't changefasterthan changefasterthan changefasterthan changefasterthan every 12 seconds every 20 minutes every 20 minutes every 20 minutes May scroll No scrolling allowed No scroliing allowed No scrolling aliowed No time restrictions Must be turned off Must be tumed ofE Must be turned off 6etween 11 PM & 7 between 11 PM & 7 between 10 PM & 7 AM o� after business AM or after business AM hours hours Committee Recommendation. Revise Sec. 64.503 as follows: Sec. 64.503. TN1—TN3 traditional neighborhood and OS—BC�4 business districts. (a) Business and identification signs: (1) The sum of the gross surface dispiay area in square feet of ail business and identification signs on a lot shall not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage, or seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever is greater. (2) No Business or identification sign shall be located in a required yard except for one freestanding sign, Freestanding signs may project into the public right-of-way up to eighteen (18) inches. 15. Regulafiorts in 62 Districts. Testimonv. Saint AnYnony Park Community Councii, JoeV Clemmer (Macalester Groveland Community Council Land Use Commiftee), and Jeanne Weigum {Scenic Sai�t Paui) testitied that signs with dynamic 09-1015 display shouid not be permitted in a 62 zoning district. Conversely, David Saker (Business Review Council) supported signs with dynamic display in the B2 zoning district. (Relates to § 64.504(a)(5)). Committee Comment. Signs with dynamic display are permifted in residential districts. With the restricfions proposed in new Sec. 64.405 fw signs wifh dynamic display, and with additionai resVictions as an intermediary step between the leve{ of resfriciion for B3 – B5 and industrial districts and residential, TN, and OS-61 business districts, they would fit the intent and purpose of the B2 district Commiftee Rec�mmendation Revise Sec. 64.504 as foUows: Sec. 64.504. �G62—B3 business and iR industriai dtstricts. (a) Business and iden�caSon signs: (5) Other comments. A. Backgroartd studies. Testimonv. David Baker (Business Review Council) said that signs with dynamic display are not dangerous, while Joef Clemmer (Macatester Grovefand Community Council Land Use Committee) says that signs with dynamic display are dartgerous. Committee Comment. In April 2009, fhe report fitied Safefy Impacts of the Emerging Digifa! Display TechnologyforOuMoorAdverfising Srgns was prepared underthe auspices of the Highway Subcommittee on Traffic OperaSons of the Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), under the Na6onal Cooperative Highway Research Program. This was a large meta-study synthesizing all of the available literature on the subject of signs with dynamic display. One of the observations of the meta-sfudy is that "the research sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry generally coocludes that there are no adverse impacts from roadside digifal biilboards, even wBen, in one case, the actual findings of such research indicate othervvise. Conversery, the conciusions reacBed in research sponsored by government agencies, insurance companies, and auto safefy erganizadons, especially in those studies performed in the past decade, tegularly demonstrate that the presence of roadside advertising signs such as digital billboards, contributes to driver distraction at levels that adversely affect safe driving perFormance.° The authors of the meta study systematically address each of the studies sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry to demonstrafe how they exhibit quesfionable scientlftc practice and disptay bias. B. Bad for business. Testimonv. David Baker (Business Review Council), and Greg Re�dail and Bill Amberg (Minnesota Sign Association), said that signs with dynamic dispiay are good for business, and expressed concem that the proposed new ordinance would hinder the ability of businesses to grow in tough economic times. Committee Comment The proposed ordinance places reasonable restrictions on signs with dynamic display, it does not prohibit fhem. Signs with dynamic display would be permitted in every zoning distriot in the city, with some disficts subject to more restrictive staodards than others. C. intent and purpose, 09-1015 Committee Comment. Research into best practices indicates tfiat it is good to include a statement of purpose to clarify the intent of the sign chapter to regulate the time, piace, and manner in which signs may be exhibited. Subsection (k) of the sign chapter purpose statement should be deleted because penalties for violations of the provisions of the zoning code, including penalties for violations of the sign chapter of the zoning code, are provided in Chapter 61, Administration and Enforcement, §§ 61.801- 61,904, not in Chapter 64, Signs. Committee Recommendation Revlse Sec. 64.101 as follows: Sec. 64.101. Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is as foltows: fa) To requlate the time olace and manner in which signs mav be exhibited� Additional Proposed Amendments i. Reference to electronic message sign Committee Comment. The definition for "electronic message sign" will be deleted when the definition for "sign with dynamic display° is adopted. Any references to electronic message sign must also be changed. Committee Recommendation. Revise Sec. 64.108 F as follows: Sec. 64.708 F Flashing sign. An illuminated sign on which the illumination is not kept stationary or constant in intensity or color at all times when the sign is in use. Ar� S�i ns with dvnamic displav and time and/ore temperature sipns are �'°^,�'�^�^'�e�s��.^.� not considered to be a flashing signs. ii. Cross-reference wifh Billboards with dynamic disptay. Committee Comment The statement "billboards with dynamic display are regulated as nonconforming uses in section 84.302" can be read as "billboards with dynamic display are regufated as nonconforming uses in section 64.302 a�d the standards bebw do not apply" whicfi it not the intent. The intent is that the statement serves as a cross-reference and billboards must abide by the regulations listed in section 64.302 in addition to section 64.405. Committee Recommendation. Revise Sec. 64.405 as fol4ows: Sec. 64.405. Signs with dynamic display. iii. ldentification signs with dynamic dispiay in residential districts Committee Comment: identification signs with dynamic display are aliowed in residential districts, but they cannot meet the general the separation standard described in 64.405. This separation standard is only relevant to all business signs. Committee Recomme�dation. Revise Sec. 64.405 as follows: 4 09-1015 Sec. 64.405. Signs with dynamic display. (a) Location and orientafion. Businessaa�-i�eati#isatieF+signs with dynamic display shall be at least sevenfy-five (75) feet, as measured along the road, from a residential district, and shall be at least fifty (5�) feet from a residential district, measured radially. Signs with dynamic display intended to be read from a freeway shall be at least sisc hundred sixty (660j feet as measured along the freeway from any other sign with dyRamic display designed to be read by drivers heading in Ehe same direction. Signs with dynamic dispiay shall not interfere with traffic and road sa#ety due to piacement and orienta6on as determined by the city traffic engineer. 10 09-1015 CIN OF SAINT PAUL Christopher 8. Co/eman, Mayor Date: To: From August 21, 2009 Planning Commission Emily Goodman and Allan Torstenson DEPARTMENT OF PLANIVING Q 8 ECONOMIC e.. DEVELOPMENT Cecrle Bedor, Director 25 Wesf Fourth Street Telephone: 651-266-6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsrmile: 651-228-3261 Subject: Public hearing testimony on the Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance In the Neighborhood Committee proposal, in order to promote internal consistency in the Zoning Code, the following edit was suggested: Add the foilowing to Sec. 64.302 Nonconforming advertising signs; conversion to biliboard with dynamic display: (b) Except in a BA or 65 zoning district, a legally nonconforming, illuminated billboard may be converted to a billboard with a dynamic display if the following conditions are met: (2) The billboard is located at least one (1) mile measured liaeal4y � other biliboard with dynamic display and at least six hundred si; alonq the freewav from anv sian with dvnamic disolav desianed to in the same direction on the freeway from any However, upon staff review, this recommendation seems redundant, given other changes the Neigh6orhood Committee also proposed. The Committee recommends deleting the now-redundant definition and regulations for billboards with dynamic display so that the definition and regulation of signs with dynamic display now clearly appiy to al1 signs with dynamic display, including billboards with dynamic display. This means that the regulations listed in Sec. 64.405 now apply to billboards with dynamic display, including "Signs with dynamic display intended to be read from a freeway shall be at least six hundred sixty (660) feet as measured along the freeway from any other sign with dynamic display designed to be read by drivers heading in the same direction." In order to make the Zoning Code more concise, the proposed addition to Sec. 64.302 should be deleted so that the section reads: (b) Except in a B4 or B5 zoning district, a legally nonconforming, illuminated biliboard may be converted to a billboard with a dynamic display if the following conditions are met: (2) The biliboard is located at least one (1) mile measured Gaea�4� along the freeway from any other billboard with dynamic display t4... f.......�...� 5...... .. .�:4M a,....,m:,. ,,:...,�.... aesigned to be read by drivers heading in the same direction on the highway. o9-iois {�p�r-ov�c� P � � r. �: r•g m:. �. ..s� -�� m Ka �<-: \ ComM �SS� O `� �..v. + "LOO� conditions on the Avenue generally where you see portable signage is where there is a mail simadon (such as at Grand and Victoria). Mr. Regan said ihe unique thing ahout Grand Avenue is that aII of the sidewalks are wide and aze connecIed to a boulevazd. All of the signs s'ff in tfie boulevard area which makes foot traffic cleaz so he does not see any signs in the sidewalk. MOTION: Comrnissioner Wenct moved to close the public hearing,leave the record open for written testimony unti14:30 p.rn. on Monday, Apri127, 2�Q9, and to refer the matter back tn the Neighborhood Planrsing Committee for review and recommendation. Commusioner Ward seconded the molinn. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. � Signs with Dvnamic Displav Ordinance — Item from the Neighborhood Planning Committee. (Emily Goodman., 651/266-6551) Chair Alton announced that the Saint Paul Planniug Commission is holding a public heaiiug on the Signs with Dynamic Display Ocdinance. No6ce of the public hearing was pub&shed in the Legal I.edger on Apri12, 2009, and was mailed to the cirywide Early Notification System list and other interested parties. Emily Goodman, PED staff, gave a presenYalion on the proposed Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance. 5he pxesented information on the backgtound and zational for the ptoposed otdinance and the substanUva changes. Commissionet Scheetler said that there aze fouc important issues hete. One is the foundation of tegulatory authority and the studies that justify regulation. What ue those studies as they relate to safety? Ms. Goodman said that the results of the studies aze very closely linked with who funded the study. So if a sNdy was funded by representalives &om the sign industry; the studies indicate that there aze no[ issues with safety. But if the study is not from the sign industry, then sNdy results indicate electronic signs aze a hazazd to safety, it is simply another one of those hazards that drivers experience. If we treat all studies equally, they aze a wash. There is a sNdy coming out later dus year that's funded by Federal Transportation Adminishation. Commissioner Schettlez had a quespon as to faimess. Ae said the regvlations appeaz to be selecting certain entities to allow fot pxoviding infom�ation (e.g, Me4o Transit, bank time, hockey team, etc J. Has someone &om the City Attorney's Office gieen their legal opinion on tlus? Ms. Goodmau answeced saying the idea of accepring things that aze considered to be public services, such as time and temperature and public transit information is a standard pcactice, but the city attomey has not given their opinion whether that is legally sound or not. Commissioner Mazgulies asked what differences e�st between tbis proposed ordinance and ordinances that other ciries have adopted, inquiring of staff what might be missing from [lus one. Ms. Goodman answered saying that the greatest difference is tha[ many communities choose to ban dynamic display signs ouhight. Stricter reshicuons with regazd to length of display, color, scrolling, and speed of hansifion aze also common. 09-1015 Commissioner Scl�ertler tu'ought up Lis last two points, e�cpiessing concem abou[ the signs at ihe Xcel Cencer and also about fhe cost of regulation. Ms. Goodman also noted letters that had been received from the Minnesota Sign Association and Daktronics wiih their comments. Chair Alton read the mles of pioceduie for the pnblic hearing. The following people spoke. 1. Mr. David Baket, 2922 Meadow Bxook Dr., Woodbiuy, MN 55125. He is cl� of the Business Review CouncIl for tfie city of St Paul. Mr. Baker said the Saint Paul Business Review CouncH (BRC) voted »nanimously to reject the pmposed ordinance pertaining to bnsiness signs with dyuamic displays at the April l, 2IX19 full BRC meeting. However, the BRC dces lilce some componenis of ttus legislation (e.g., pemntting the signs in the B2 zone, relating brighmess levets to ambient light, etc.). Mr. Baker said chat dynamic sigis aze good for business and can deliver public service announcements. Mr. Baker expressed disagreement about several specifrc policies in the ordinance: they aze not proposed to be aIlowed in TN distdcts, the distance between dynamic signs and biIlboazds, and restdcfions on schools and churches. Mr, Baker believes that coacem that dynamic display signs are dangerons is unfonnded In addition, when in heavy traffic Mr. Baker does not notice these signs because he keeps his eyes on the road. We are asking that the Planning Commission forwazd this mattet to the BRC for further discusson and additional fact finding. , Cl�air Alton said that ttns mattes will be iefeaed to a committee before a decision is made and the committee will study it. He also said that the committee meetings aze public and he invited Mr. Baker to come and pazticipate in the discussion. 2. Gteg Rendall, piesident of the Minnesota Sign Association and Bill Amberg, an attomey representing the Minnesota Sign Association. 1VIr. Ambetg said they submitted a Iettet to all the commissionexs stating that they have some specific concems with the draft ordinance changes. Referring to the letter he read some of the lughlights. "The proposed change langnage conceming Electronic Message Centeis (EMCs) causes some concems for sigt makers and local business owneLS. MSA is concerned that the proposed sigo oidinance changes with iegazd to IIvICs will have potentially negative impact on local businesses. The Small Business Administration estimates that busmesses can raise tfieii revenue anywhere from 1S to 150 percent with an F.MC, Fnrthennoxe, EMCs are a good advertising value for smaIl business that often cannot afford other means of advertising that largex businesses can. Second, as you �ow, EMCs aze mtended foi a variety of uses. They can be used for identification, smilar to a tradifional sign, bnt aze typicaIly deployed to psovide timely 09-1015 information to the public regazding goods, services, and piomotions. They also provide public secvice infoxmation. Unlike signs utilized for stricfly identification purposes (e.g., TacgeL), IIVIC messages often need mulflple frames to be effectively communicated. Regulations placing resTrictive message durations (longer thaa a couple of seconds) accompanied cvith azea resttictions and minimum font sizes prevent the public from seeing a complete message when passing a sign. Such requirements can force EMC owners to span messages out to an impracfical duration. Third, the proposed reguladons also seek to limit EMCs to 20 percent of the allowed signage azea. EMCs difFer from traditionally illuminated signs only in their ability to display multiple messages. Saint Panl's regnlations do not limit other illuminated signs. Mt. Rendall said the higgest issue is only allowing EMCs to be 20% of the total allowed sign azea. He believes that in the fuuue strip centexs will be built and rhe entixe signage will be electronic message centers for aesTheUc reasons. Addiflonally, Mr. Rendall does not think you can limit content or color ro an instimfion. Mr. Rendall wants the ordinance to be future- thinldng. 3. Adam Skare with Dakxronics, Inc. says they aze the world's lazgest providers of electrronic message centers and digital display. He wanted to make two points about one topic and that is the 20% of the overall signage being dynamia First, they feel that it should be up to ffie business owner to make the decision as to the percentage for thea sigi. Secand, by Testricting overall sign size for ttie digital portion it could make the sign diffiwlt to read. 4. Joel Clemmzc 2154 Fainnount Avenue, SC.Paul, MN 55105, cepiesenpng the Macalestex Groveland Community Council Land Use Coaunittee. First, they aze very concerned about the appeazance of their communides. The technology for display and signage is changing and [he ordinances have to change in order to keep up. Mr. Clemmer agrees with the intent of the proposed ordinance. 5econdly, Mr. Clemmer reviewed the smdies that have been done by the Naflonal Transpixation Safety CoUncil and he said that they aze very cleaz. I{ attention is lifted from the toad for two seconds oc longer the pxobabiliry of cxashes increases significantly. Therefoxe, signs with dynamic display pTesent a safety hazaxd. Third, tfiey wish to maintain a fair environment for competition among businesses. However, they do not believe that applying reasonable reshic6ons to signage that aze equally applicable to all businesses is interfering with that comperi6on. Specifically the Macalester Groveland Housing Land Use Committee in its resolution approved of reasonable controls on dynamic display signs and agrees with the intent of the draff ordinance and the proposed amendments from St. Anthony Park Community Council. Mr. Clemmer recommends that there be one dynamic design sign on one zoning loY, rather than having an ordinance that permits multiple signs. Also they do not want to see sciolling oi moving displays on an elecuomc bnsiness sign. In conclusion, he said they want to have a look at the ordinances reguding the 660 feet distance between elechonic billboazds and electronic business signs and to be cazeful that the oidinances are symmetrical, S. 7eanne Weigum 1647 Laurel Avenue, St. Paul, MN represenflng Scenic SL Paul. She said 09-1015 that they shaze the concetns of St. Anthony Park and tfiey want to reintegrete fhe notion ffiat these signs should not be within 660 feet of an etectronic billboazd and the revexse shonld also be true so the measarements should go in both directions. Ms. Weigum sazd as she listened to the presentation, she got the sense that G�ry staff was creating the ordinance based on the MRP sign and the Xcel Center sign, effectively geuymanderiag the ordinance to frt these. Ms. Weigum said that we need to cteate an ordinauce ihat we wanY and the ordinance we need and grandfather in those two signs if needed She supports Yhe notioa ihat The color should not be zed bnt amber and t6at the signs shonld not swirl, twirl or scmll, because that's a dishaction. Lastly, she said that theie are electronic signs that moimt inside a window and face out, aimed at athacting an andience on the streex. This ordinance does not address that. She encomages that this issue of window signs 6e looked at and either add it to flus pxoposal or ask staff to go back and addiess that issue. MOTION: Cammissiorier Wencl moved to ciose the public hearing, leave the reeord open for wriUen testimony until4:34 p.m. on Morsday, ApnZ 27, 2009, and to refer the maiter baek to the Neighborhood Planning Comm#ttee for review and recommendation. Commissioner Ward seeonded the motioa The motion carried unanimousiy on a voiee vote. V. Zoning CommiUee OLD BUSIl\FSS �1D9-041-108 Ca�itol Car Co. —EnlargemenY of nonconfomvng use far a new, lazger building for motor vehicle salvage, auto repair, auro body repair, and outdoor auto sales basinesses. 388 Como Avenue, SW corner at Wes[em Avenue. (Josh Wiiliams, 651/266-6659) MOTION: Commissioner Morton moroed the Zoning Comruittee's reeommeredation to approve the enlargement of nonconforrning use. Commissioner Morton stated that she voted to deny the enlazgement of nonconforming use at the Zoning Committee meetmg. Hex concern was thatthe City is moving foxwacd with a new road that will go Suough the property. She asked foi infomiation about the timeline, if the city has ihe money to purcHase this right away, and what wonid ba the position of the city if tUis entargement is appioved. Peter Wa�er, Assistant (�ry Attorney, said that he had spokeu with Mr. Maczko from the Ciry's Public Works Deparunent, and lus understanding is that tfie City Council has not yet approved the 5na1 order to do flus sh�eet improvement project. The Ciry has condemnation authority, bnt cannM eatercise that auihority ffifil a final order has been approved bq the City ConnciL The Council may approve this final order on May 6 There are two parallel aspecis to this: the Ciry's legal right to condemn a pxoperty and the property owner's legal rigUt to improve his/ber property. One does not pieclude the othet. If the Plauning Commission accepts the recommendation of the Zoning Committee, Uus property owner can exercise ]us legal right to make impxovements [o his property. Doing that does not preclude ttte Ciry from exerc:ising its legal right to condemn the properry, but it may cost the City moze money. Co�ssioner Schertlet asked if the apptoval of dus request is discretionary by tLis boazd. 09-1015 Minnesota SIGl� Assaciation 1000 Westqate Dr., Ste 252 St. Paui, MN 55114-1067 Emily Goodman Office of the City Planner 1400 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesata 55102 Apri122, 2009 RE: Proposed Changes to the City of St. Paul Sign Ordinance Dear Ms. Goodman: It has come to our attention that the City of St. Paul is in the process of amending the sign ordinance portions of the St. Paul code, The Minnesota'Sign Association (MSA) is the trade association for Miunesota sign makers and represents the interests of sign makers throughout Minnesota before the State Legislature and local govemments. The MSA has some specific concems with the dra8 ordinance changes, discussed below. First, we have prepued a few suggested changes to fhe proposed amendment to the St. Paul, which are attached. The proposed change language concerning Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) causes some concerns for sign makers and local business owners. MSA is concemed that the proposed sign ordinance changes with regard to EMCs will have a potentially negative impact on local businesses — during very difficult economic times. The Smail Business Administration estimates that businesses can raise theix revenue anywhere fzom 15 to 150 percent with an EMC. Furthermore, &MCs are a good adveRising value for small businesses that often cannot afford other means of advertising that lazger business can. Second, as you know, EMCs are intended for a variety of uses. They can be used for identification, similar to a traditional sign, but aze typically deployed to provide timely information to the public regarding goods, services, and promotions. They also provide public service information. Unlike signs u6lized for strictly identification purposes (e.g., Target), EMC messages often need multiple frames to be effectively communicated. Regulations placing restrictive message dwations (longer than a couple of seconds) accompanied with area restrictions and minimum font sizes prevent the public from seeing a complete message when passing a sign. Such requirements can force EMC owners to span messages out to an impractical duration. Third, the proposed regulations also seek to limit EMCs to 20 percent of the allowed signage area. EMCs differ from traditionally illuminated signs only in their ability to display multiple messages. St, Paul's regulations do not limit other illumivated signs' 09-1015 area to such an extent. Nor do the current regulations limit on-premise EMCs' area. Such area restricUons accompanied with the proposed 12 second or 20 minute hold times (depending on the zone), drasrically restrict sign ownexs' abilify to communicate. If enacted, these regulations would force sign owners to place messages on EMCs which are much too small to display messages. This ivhiibits EMC owners' ability to display legible information, and ultimately prevents the public from easily identifying and reading these valuable messages. Fow�fh, EMCs in any azea must be separated by 660 feet under current ordinance. The proposed regutations seek to strike this provision from most areas of t6e City, with the exception of areas adjacent to freeways. While eradicating distanca restrictions from the code is a positive step, the EMCs in proximity to a freeway should also be excluded from such restrictions. The Federal goveinment specifically exempts on-premise signs along federally regulated highways from regulations. Distance regulations aze meant for of£- premise signs. EMCs are expensive enough that not every busittess can afford them. Any fears of proliferation are unreasonable and unsubstantiated Finally, we would like for these concems of Minnesota sign makers 6e seriously considered at the Apri124'� Planning Commission meeting. Representatives of the MSA plan to be in attendance at this meeting and will be able to answer any questions that you or the city council may have, Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �i'� �_ '`'+�--- . Crreg Rendall President Minnesota Sign Association Cc: Brian Alton, Chair, St. Paul Planning Commission Tema Wilson, Daktronics Adam Skare, Daktmttics William J. Amberg, MSA attorney 09-1015 PUBLIC HEARING TESTQviONY FROM BILL AMBERG, ATTORNEYFORMINNESOTA SIGNASSOCIATION (APRIL 24, 2009� Saint Paul, MN The following changes should be made to the proposed ordinance amending the Legislative Code Chapter 64 released March 4, 2009. Only portions of the proposed ordinance needing revision were included in this document. Nofe: UnderlininQ and °'-�"°�� show the changes from the proposed ordinance as released by the Planning Department, November 21, 2008. Definitions T'hat Legislarive Code Chapter 64 and the various defuutions contained therein aze hereby amended by amending the term "Flashing sign" from § 64.107.F., and adding the following new paragraphs under § 64121.A, § 64.121. F. and § 64.121. S. to read: Sec. b4.103. A. Advanced speed arteries. A limited access freeway or other road upon portions of which speeds of forty-five (45) miles per hour or greater aze permitted. AcFvertising sign. A sign which directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment wluch is conducted, sold or manufactured elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is placed. It sha11 be considered as a nonaccessory sign except that an advertising sign on a professionaI sports facility with permanent seating for more than ten thousand {10,000) spectatoxs sha11 be considered as accessory. Bi]lboards are a form of advertising sign. Advertising signs located on bus stop shelters, courtesy benches and newsstands are regulated under other chapters and are not subject to the requirements of this chapter. Sports facility sponsorship signs aze a special type of off-premise sign and aze subject to different regulations from advertising signs. Animation. The use of movement or some element thereof, to denict action or create a s�ecial effect or scene. 3ec.64.108. F. Flashing s�gn. A nattern of changina li¢ht illumivation where the si�n illumination alternates suddenly between fullv illuminated and fully.non-illuminated for - - ' o9-iois Frame effect. A visual effect on a si�n with a dynamic dispIav applied to a sinQle frame to transition $om one message to the neact. Freestand:ng sign. A sign whick is mounted into the gounc3 or supported by one (1} or more upright poles, columns, or bxaces placed in or on the gcound and not aftached to any building. Sec. b4.121. 5. Sign. The use oi words, numerals, figtxres, devices, designs or trademarks the purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, business, product ox message. . . . �, a� ...�-. . �. �•�.. ��.. �• . u.•- �. .� .� - �. . u- �.� �.�•-. . -��. - . .��. .. - - - - - -- - r. Sports facility sponsorship sign. An accessory sign tUat is located at a ballfield, hockey rink, or galf course used by the public for athletic acrivities, and that identifies a sponsor in recognition of tfie sponsor's financial support for the sports facility and sports programs at the facility. State building code. The Minnesota State Building Code, as may be amended from time to time, including all amendmenLS therem made from the date of enactment of the state building code. Sireamingvideo. The use of live action footage shoY with a video camera or similar device which is sized to fit and be displaved bv a sign witk a dvnamic display or similar device. Swinging sign. A sign that moves back and forth freely, or sways in the wiud. Provisions Relating to Signs with Dqnamic Displays ' ' '' o9-iois That Legislative Code Chapter 64's General Provisions aze herehy amended by creating § 64.422 to be entifled "Signs with dynamic display." That section will Tead as follows: Sec. 64.422. Signs with dynamic display egcept billboards. (a) Signs with dynamic display shall be subject to the standards below. Billboards with dynamic display are regulated as nonconforming uses in section 64302. (1) The signs shall be restricted in tiieir placement and orientation so that: a. Business signs with dynamic displays aze at least seventy- five (75) feet, as measured along the road, from a residential district, and sha11 be at least fifty (50) feet from a xesidential district, measured radially, unless the illuminated portion of the d�namic display is not visible from a residential district; b. Signs with dynamic displays do not interfere with traffic and road safety due to placement and orientation as determined by the city traffic engineer; and - - --' - - - __:.,,,. �--� - - {� j2� The signs shall be restricted in their illumination and brightness so that: a. No sign with dynamic display may exceed a ma�mum illuxuination of 3 foot candles above ambzent light levels as measured from one hundred (1001 feet from the sia�'s face. b. No sign with dynamic dfsptay may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an offzcial traffic sign, device, signal or the safely of the 09-1015 public, or located where it would do so as determined by the city trcr�'fcc engineer; c. All signs with dynamic displays having illumivation by means other than nahuai light must be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or other mechauism that automatically controls the sign's brightness to comply with the xequirements of tius section. e. If there is a violaflon of the brightness standards, the adjustarettt must be made within one (1) business day upon notice of non-compliance from the city�, and f. Signs with dynamic displays must be designed and equipped to freeze the sign face in one position if a malfunction occurs. Signs with dynamic displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfuncfions, and the sign owner or operator must � hun offthe display within fortv ei¢ht (481 hours of notification �e�-aet-�e� by the city tbat it is not camplying with the staudards of this ordinance, (4) The following standazds shall apply to the duration, transition, and other characteristics of signs with dynamic display. For residential districts, additional xestrictions are Iisted in section 64.502. a. Fxcept at professional sport facilities, signs with dynamic display shall not include moving video images. b. Si�ns witlun INSERT HEAVY CONIMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES be �ermitted subject to the vrovisions of this Chagtex and subject to the following: 1. Such signs ma�contain animation and frame effects• and 2. Such sia�s shatl not contain flazhinQ. c. Si�s within INSERT LIGHT EO1VIlv1ERCIAL OR WEI,L-TRAVELED ZONES shall be �ermitted subject to the vrovisions of the Cltapter and sub�ect to the followin¢� 1. Such siQns shall contain static messa¢es for a period of at least one f l� second before transitioniinQ to another static message; and 09-1015 2. Such signs may contain frame effects for the purpose of transitiott, so long as no effects contain the appearance of flashiug. g�_er.�rs:�rr!�r!�r��!s�!!�rrses.res!zesr�s�s - • - --••• - •- -- - - - -• - -.. . . :...u-.�as�,._,• e�s_!�:��r.e� e.d. Signs with dynamic displays sha11 not emit sound except for drive-through sales and services as allowed under secflon 65.513. € e. r�.we_.ti..ae� ..F,�:....i...,:....,_.,.,...,..e� ...w:,�:<sa. Modes which cause the message to flash aze prolu'bited. Provisions Relating to Signs with Dynamic Displays in Residentiai Districts That Legisladve Code §64.502 "RL through RM3 residential districts" is hereby amended to reflect the reslrictions on signs with dynamic display set forth in § 64.422 "Signs with dynamic display" for pazk, community centers, and religious, civic or philanthropic institutions and aze prolubited elsewhere in the districts. Sec. 64.502. RL througL RM3 residential districts. (a) Identifzcation signs: (4) For parks, community centexs, and xeligious, civic, educational or philautlaropic institutions, one (1) identification sign, not �ceeding a total of tlurry (30) squaze feet in azea for each street frontage, and one (1) bulletin boacd not exceeding a total of thirty (3�) square feet in area. Such bulletin board signs may be signs with dynamic 09-1015 display and abide by the provisions set forth in section 64.422. In addifion, they shall not: � �. T T : _ - ` — a -- _. c _ ,.i..t,,.....,,,�..:.. + .,. _,,. '� r _._��"" � 6. n° ,.. :.�. :`..a:' +u�'.�.:�� ^ " T.' . ..::j vi miivc�. �b. Change their displays faster than every three �3) seconds fiavea�es, e:c. Remain illuminated between the kours of 10 PM and 7 AM: 09-1015 DAKTRON 1 CS ., - _._� .. ,�• Pfanning Commission CRy of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: City of Saint Paul Sign Regulations To VJfiom This M ay Concern; In reference to the proposed regulations pertaining to signs with dynamic displays; we would fike to provide the following comments regarding Saint Paul's amendment to the Legislative Code Chapter 64. We hope you find this letter beneficial. Daktronics, lnc. is the world leader in the design and manufacture of electronic dispiay systems. Daktronics offers many products, tncluding signs felling under Saint Paul's proposed definition for "signs with dynamic dispiays;' which we commonly refer to as electronic message centers (EMCs). Herein, I will referto signs with dynamfc dispfays as EMCs. Usage Regulations • We would like to applaud the Planning Commission for its consideration of positive regulations for EMCs within Saint Paul. Such measures will benefit both sign owners and the city alike, To our understanding, however, the Commission is seeking to place restrlctive message time restrictions, while imposing size limitatians that are less than e fourth of the allotted area is currently permitted for these signs. Such limitations will have a devastating impact on tfie amount of speech EMCs can portray, end will uftimately impad businesses' as well as the community's economic well-being. The proposed regulations seek to require that EMCs' messages remain static for at least 12 seconds or 20 minutes (depending on xhe district), with limited scrolling allowances in certain commercial districts. EMCs are often too small to display an entire message in a single frame. They need multiple frames to effectively portray an entire message to the public. Regulations placing restrictive message durations (longer than a couple of seconds) as well as strict area limitations prevent the public from seeing a complete message when passing a sign. Such requirements force EMC owners to span messages out ta an impractical duration; whereas, if they are given the latitude to pass on information in a timely manner, ihe potentiat for communication deficits will be mitigated. When drafting regulations pertaining to EMCs, it is paramount that such regulations are written to reflect the amount of commercial and lndustrial activity within an area. Daktronics recommends using provisions, which regulate EMC usage based on the amount of commercial activity within a given zone. Rather than a"o�e :ize fits all" approach, we recommend that areas containing large amounts of commercial activity be affosded more lenient usage regulations. While in more protected areas, a more restrictive usage may be implemented. However, it is important to remember, as stated previously, that � DAKTROlVtGS 09-1015 DAKTRt7NiGS requiring message durations lasting more than a couple of secortds can severely inhibit the amount of communication expressed to the public. Area Limitations The proposed regulations seek to IimR EMCs to 20 percent of the allowed signage area. Such regulations would force sign owners to place mesuges on EMCs which are much too small to display said messages. This inhibits EMC owners' ability to display legi6le information, and ultimately prevents the public from easily identifying and readingthese valuable messages. Providing area allowa�ces equat to the requirements within the current sign standards will mitigate the potential communicatfon deficits caused by restridive area limitations. Distartce Requirements Currently, EMCs in any area must be separated by 660 feet. The proposed regulations seek to strike this provision for most areas, with the except(on of areas adjacent to freeways. While ridding the code of the distance restrictions is a positive step, the EMCs in proximity to a freeway should also be excluded from such restridions. The Federal government specifically exempts on-premise signs along federalty regulated higbwaysfrom regulations. Distance regulations are meantforoff-premisesigns. Allowtng EMCs by right in a particular location, regardless of their proximity to a freeway, eliminates the "race to the permitting office" and prevents unfair advantages caused by allowing same businesses to erect an EMCwhi(e preventing others. � Brightness FJnally, we would like to applaud the Commission for its consideretion of the use of foot candles to measure brightness. Requiring o3 foot candles above ambient light is one of the most user- and regulation-friendly methods of ineasuring EMC brightness. Where Nits (Candelas per mater squared) can only measure how much tight the sign is emitting, and not how bright the sign seems ta the human eye, foot candles measure the amount of light being added to tfie ambient environment. Such limitatio�s are based on acceptable practices of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. It is important to note, however, that the proposed language suggesu measuring all EMCs at a distance of fifty (SOj feet from the sign. The fooi candle standard depends on a variety of facYors, lncluding the size of a disptay. The measurement process may be negatively affected if all signs are measured at a distance of fifty (50) feet. The measurement suggestions listed below line out industry standard measuring distances, based on the siie of the sign. These distances are applicahle to digital billboards as weil. 0-200 square toot signs to be measured 200 feet from source, ' 101-350 square foot sign to be meazured 15a feet from source, 351-650 square foot sign to be measured 200 feet from source, 651-1000 square foot sign to 6e measured 250 feet from source, Over 1000 square foot sign to be measured 350 feet from source. When wrRing amendments regarding this valuable technology, local regulators should be aware thaY overty restricting EMCs can negatrvely affect business owrters', as well as the communit�/s economic we(Ibeing. The Small Business Admfnistration estimates that businesses can raise their revenue anywhere from 15 to 150 percent with an EMC, Such an increase in business not only positivefy impacts � DAKTf2�MC5 � BUSINESS REVIEW COUNCII. Dwid Baker. Chair Roberl H"umphrey, BRC Staff CI`tY OF SAINT PAL3L 375 Jacksan Slreet, Suite 220 Christopher B. Coleman, Mayar St Paul, Minnesam 55101-1806 Apri124, 2009 TO: Saint Paul Plamiing Commission FROM: � David Baker, Chair, Saint Paul Business Review Council 09-1015 Telephone: 65l-266-9123 Facslmile: 651-266-9122 Web: w vw sroavl eavld st Tesrimony to April 24, 2009, Saint Paul Planning Commission Pubiic F3eazing held at &:30 AM in City Hall Conference Center Room 40 Key Points Discussed: • The Saint Paul Business Review Council (BRC) voted unaniraously to reject the proposed ordinance perta.ining to business signs with dynamic displays at the April l, 2009, Full BRC meetzng. • 'Rhe Business Review Coimcil does like some components of this legislation. For instance, the fact that this legislation allows these business signs in B2 districts. • The Business Review Council approves of use of these signs in mixed use type developments. • The Business Review Council approves of the idea to address 6rightness issnes pertaining to ambient llghts. • Static signs become background and people do not notice them. • Dynamic signs can deliver nnportant information such as "amber alerts" to the public. � The proposed restrictive distauce between signs is a major issue. • Why is tl�is ordinance restrictive to schools and cfiurches sdvertising such things as Sunday worship, class plays, and basketball and football schedules? • Proposed fear of dynamic displays being dangerous to the public due to distracted drivers are unfounded. It depends on whose study you look at. In addition, when in hea�y traffic I do not natice these signs as Pm keeping my eye on the road. An Equal Opportunity Empioyer 09-1015 DAKTRQN 1 CS �l� tiusiness owners it also positively impacts their communities by Increasing tax base. In a struggling economy, small and large Businesses alike need a cost-effective advertising medium that has been proven Yo work. We would like to express our support of the alternate suggestions pertaining to EMCs whicfi were submitted for review by the Minnesota Sign Association. Such provisions will assure commurtrty tastes are protected while allowing business owners appropriate usage of this valuable medium. • Daktronics is committed to providing information and aiding regulatory entities in drafting appropriate regulations for EMCs, which cater to both community tastes and the needs of local business owners. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerefy, �,� �-- . RogerBrown Signage Legislation 605-695-7060 CC: Terra Willson, Daktronia Adam Skare, Daktronics Bili Amberg, Ewald Consulting Greg Rendall, Minnesota Sign Association �� DAKTRONIC5 09-1015 Sc Anthon}� Park Cammimity Counp! fDisma �_ �`70 Gaimvelt Arrnue. SL PxuL Mtd 5py { y�:Gi9 - 599 2 �Fl Syt.C`-F9 fx�.4nW'32StiCACg, Apri127,2Q04 To the Members of the Planning Commission: S7. ANTHO7�Y P.4RK ,� I am writing to express the support of the St. Anthony Pazk Community Council for the draf[ ordinance regu]ating dynamic display business signs, with some modifications. On Apri] 9tn the Board of I7irectors passed the following resolution: SAPCC recommends the follawing changes to the praposed dynamic display sign ordinance: 2. 3. 4. S. 6. If no electronic business sign can be Zess than 660 feet from an electronic billboard, then no electronic billboard should be altowed within 660 feet of an electronic business sign. Otherwzse, the intenf ofseparating the distractiorrs is defeated if the business sign is there first. No more than one dyna»sic design sign should be allowed on a zoning lot, with the size of the dynamic display being based on a percentage of the sign face, not the total allowafile signage on the Zot. No scrolls or other moving displc{ys should be allowed on the electronic business sign. They are more distracting than stable text that changes every 12 seconds. ATtow muted red text on btack background only. These colors are less intense and therefore less distracting than white or other bright colors. If more than these two colors are adlowed on dynamic signs, the various signs will cause distraction as they use dtffering colors to compete for attention. No dynamic signs should be permitted in a B-2 zone No dynamic signs be permitted in an historical district without the approval of the HPC. On behalf of the SAPCC, I send thanks for your consideration. Sincerely,\ �� Amy Sparks, Execu#ive Director St. Anthony Park Community Council 09-1015 The Department of Safefy and Inspecfions (DSn is currently undergoing extremely difficult economic fimes. Should DSI spend e�ctremely limited amounts of stzff time enforcing sucfi a irivial ordinance? The Business Review Couttcil would like to further refine this legislation. The public, and cleazly businesses, have not had the opporhuiity to provide enough feedback regarding this ordinance. We aze asldng that the Planning Commission forward ttris matter to the BRC for fixrther discussion and additional fact frnding. Page 1 of 1 Emily Goodman - Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance Hearing �� /� From: "Tim Stewart" <trstewart(a�q.com> Tu: <emily.goodman cr,cistpaul.mn.us> Date: 1 0/1 9/2009 4:16 PM Subject: Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance Hearing Deaz Emily; I understand there is a heazing on 10/21/09 regarding the Signs with Dynamic Display Ordinance. I am unable to attend but wanted to submit a quick note to go on record as being against these signs as wel] as all billboards in Saint Paul. I know the city has tried and, thus far, been unsuccessful eliminating these signs. As such, I wanted to make my voice heard. Regards, Tim Stewart ] 036 Ashland Ave Saint Paul, MN 55104 file:/(C:\Documents and Settings\goodmane\Local Settings\Temp�XPgrpwise\4ADC9QF6... 10/21(20�4 Minnesota SIGN Association 1000 Westgate Dr., Ste 252 Emily Goodman Office of the City Planner 1400 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Sh�eet St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 October 19, 2009 �� c�5 St. Paul, MN 55114-1067 RE: Proposed Changes to the City of St. Paul Sign Ordinance Dear Ms. Goodman: The City of St. Paul is in the process of amending the sign ordinance portions of the St. Paul code. The Minnesota Sign Association (MSA) is the trade association for Minnesota sign makers and represents the interests of sign makers throughout Minnesota before the State Legislature and loca] governments. The MSA has son�e specific concems with the draft ordinance cl�anges, discussed below. First, the proposed change language concerning Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) causes concern for sign makers and local business owners. MSA is concerned that the proposed sign ordinance changes with regazd to EMCs will have a potentially negative impact on local businesses — during very difficult economic times. The Small Business Administration estimates that businesses can raise their revenue anywhere from I S to I50 percant with an EMC. Furtheiniore, EMCs are a good advertising value for sma11 businesses that often cannot afford other means of advertising tl�at larger business can. Second, as you know, EMCs are intended for a variety of uses. They can be used for identification, similar to a traditional si�n, but are typically deployed to provide timely infonnation to the pubIic regarding goods, services, and promotions. They also provide public service information. Unlike signs utilized for strictly identification purposes (e.g., Target), EMC messages often need multiple frames to be effectively commm�icated. Regulauons placing restricrive message durations (ionger than a coup]e of seconds) accompanied with area reshictions and minimum font sizes prevent the public from seeing a complete message when passing a sign. Such requirements can force EMC owners to span messages out to an impractical duration. MSA believes that such regulations should be drafted to reflect the amount of commercial and industrial activity within an area. It makes sense that EMC usage should be regulated based on the amount of cominercial activity within a particular city zone. Third, the proposed code changes also seek to limit EMCs to 20 percent of the allowed sianage area. EMCs differ from h illuminated signs only in their ability to display multiple messages. St. Pau]'s regulations do not liiuit other illwninated signs'area to such an extent. Nor do the current regulations limit on-premise EMCs' area. Such �- �0�5 area restrictions accompanied with the proposed 12 second or 20 minute hold-times (depending on the zone), drastically restrict si�n ov✓ners' ability to communicate with the public in commercial districts. If enacted, these regulations would force si� oumers to place messages on EMCs which are much too small to display messages. This inhibits EMC owners� ability to display legible information, and ultimately prevents the public from easily identifying and reading these valuable messages. Fourth, in forn�ularing the proposed sign code changes, the Planning Commission substantially re]ied on a studv entitled "The Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Dispiay Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs: ' M5A member Daktronics has sepazately submitted documents that raise several concems with that study's use as a rationale for some of the proposed sign code changes. MSA urges cauneil members to read these documents closely. Finally, we would like for these concerns of'VIinnesota sign makers be serious]y considered at the October 21 `� City Council meeting. Representatives of the MSA plan to be in attendance at tl�is meeting and will be able to answer any questions that Council inay have. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, � / -C�z�� Greg Rendall President Minnesota Sign Association Cc: Tesa Wilson, Daktronics Adasn Skare, Daktronics Williazn J. Amberg, MSA attorney d�-i�,�s Dynamic Display Signs Regulatory Zoning District Clusters - -- - - ,-�--- �--- �, -- ---��-- Residential TN, OS BC Districts Business , ►• Districfs I Moncehromatic Monochromahc Full Full images allowed images allowed images allowed images allowed Text & images Text & images Text & images Text & images cant change can't change can't change can't change faster than eveiy faster than every faster than faster than 20 minutes 20 minutes every 20 every 12 muiutes seconds No scrolluig No scmlling No scrolling May sciroll allowed .illowed allowed Must be turned Must be turned Must be tumed No time off between 10 o£f between 11 off between 11 restrictions PM&7AM PM&9AMor PM&7AMor afterbusiness afterbusiness hours hours Source Department of Planning and Economic Development, City of Samt Paul, October 2009