Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_08Apr22City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission City Hall 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue Tuesday, Apri122, 2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL: Anderson Hasegawa Lukermann Noble Rodich Salzberg • Watkins Council Liaison Kuettel City Administrator Miller Staff Liaison Jones City Attorney C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 25, 2007 D. PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation of Walk 4 E. AGENDA: 1. Discussion and recommendation to City Council on proposed vacation of city right of way 2. Introduction: City Council moratorium on permits for certain signs F. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS G. ADJOURN to workshop on the sign code If you have a disability and need accommodation in order to attend this meeting, please notify City Hall 48 hours in advance between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p. m. at 651-792-7600. We will be happy to help. City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission City Hall 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue Tuesday, Apri122, 2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL: Anderson Hasegawa Lukermann Noble Rodich Salzberg • Watkins Council Liaison Kuettel City Administrator Miller Staff Liaison Jones City Attorney C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 25, 2007 D. PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation of Walk 4 E. AGENDA: 1. Discussion and recommendation to City Council on proposed vacation of city right of way 2. Introduction: City Council moratorium on permits for certain signs F. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS G. ADJOURN to workshop on the sign code If you have a disability and need accommodation in order to attend this meeting, please notzfy Cih~ Hall 48 hours in advance between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at 651-792-7600. We will be happy to help. • • MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Planning Commission CC: Justin Miller, City Administrator; Laura Kuettel, Council Liaison Frorn: Deb Jones, Staff Liaison Subject: Planning Commission Meeting on Apri122, 2008 Date: Apri118, 2008 The Planning Commission has two agenda items this month First, the city has received an application from the owner of 1742 Tatum to vacate an unused city walkway adjacent to his property. The commission needs to • make a recommendation to the Council. For complete information, please see the packet. This matter will be preceded by a public hearing. Second, on March 12 the City Council passed an ordinance temporarily prohibiting the issuance of permits for certain signs, including dynamic electronic signs. The period of this moratorium is 6 months, ending September 10. On Tuesday the Planning Commission will begin work on this issue with a review of the existing sign code and an introduction to the issues posed by new sign technologies, with a workshop after the meeting for informal preliminary discussion and formulating direction to staff. Joel Jamnik from the City Attorney's office will be present. We encourage you to ask him questions both during the formal portion of the meeting and during the workshop. You may also wish to commence your own education on this issue by reading the City of Minnetonka's study on the LMC website and searching for ordinances that have been passed by other cities. As always, please notify staff if you are unable to be present. Have a good weekend! See you Tuesday! • CITY OF FALCON H E I 2077 W Larpenteur Avenue G H TS Falcon Hei hts MN - g 55113 5594 email: mailC~ci.falcon-heights.mn.us website: www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us Phone - (651) 792-7600 Fax - (651) 792-7610 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Planning Commission CC: Justin Miller, City Administrator; Laura Kuettel, Council Liaison From: Deb Jones, Staff Liaison Subject: Planning Commission M 'ng on Apri122, 2008 Date: Apri118, 2008 The Planning Commission has two agenda items this month First, the city has received an application from the owner of 1742 Tatum to vacate an unused city walkway adjacent to his property. The commission needs to • make a recommendation to the Council. For complete information, please see the packet. This matter will be preceded by a public hearing. Second, on March 12 the City Council passed an ordinance temporarily prohibiting the issuance of permits for certain signs, including dynamic electronic signs. The period of this moratorium is 6 months, ending September 10. On Tuesday the Planning Commission will begin work on this issue with a review of the existing sign code and an introduction to the issues posed by new sign technologies, with a workshop after the meeting for informal preliminary discussion and formulating direction to staff. Joel Jamnik from the City Attorney's office will be present. We encourage you to ask him questions both during the formal portion of the meeting and during the workshop. You may also wish to commence your own education on this issue by reading the City of Minnetonka's study on the LMC website and searching for ordinances that have been passed by other cities. As always, please notify staff if you are unable to be present. Have a good weekend! See you Tuesday! C~ HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE O~O PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City of Falcon Heights • Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2008 PRESENT: Commissioners Anderson, Hasegawa, Lukermann, Noble, Rodich, Salzberg, Watkins and Councilmember Kuettel. Also present was City Attorney Joel Jamnik and Staff Liaison Deb Jones. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Watkins at 7:02 p.m. The minutes of the February 26, 2008, meeting were approved with a minor correction. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City of Falcon Heights Prior to the opening of the hearing, staff liaison Jones presented the staff report. All cities in the metropolitan area are required to submit new or updated comprehensive plans to the Metropolitan Council by the end of 2008. Before the plan is submitted it must be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council after a public hearing and given to adjacent cities, the school district and other bodies for review. After over a year of work by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council, a volunteer resident steering committee and the city's consultants, a draft has been prepared and has been available on the city's website since January. A public open house was held March 13, and another is planned for April 3. This evening is the • required public hearing, to be followed by recommendation action by the commission. Jones reviewed the "Vision, Values and Objectives" section of the plan for the audience and revisited the land use portion, discussed by the commission last month. She displayed a map that summed up the limited changes in land use expected in Falcon Heights between now and 2030. Redevelopment is expected to be confined to larger commercial properties along Larpenteur Avenue west of Snelling and some of the older apartment sites. Development will be market driven. The Metropolitan Council forecast predicts that Falcon Heights will need about 250 additional housing units by 2030. Finally, Jones acknowledged the efforts of all the people who contributed to the creation of the new plan. The Chair opened the hearing. There being no one who wished to speak, the Chair then closed the hearing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Commissioner Lukermann wished to return to the issue of affordable housing that was a big part of last months discussion. She feels it is important for the city to write a stronger commitment into the implementation of the plan by requiring ten percent of new housing to be affordable by Metropolitan Council standards, including any single-family housing that might be developed in the future on what is now City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008 -Page 1 of 3 University land. She moved that the commission recommend the addition of this requirement to the Housing portion of the Implementation section of the plan (Section IV, page 14). The motion received a second. A lengthy discussion ensued. Generally, commissioners expressed agreement with the intent of Commissioner Lukermanri s motion. Several commissioners had questions or reservations about adding such specific language. Some felt that the existing draft language goes far enough because the comprehensive plan is intended to be a goal oriented document, that the draft already makes a general commitment to affordable housing in several places, and that this would be better addressed in the zoning code. Others felt that leaving it to future zoning changes is too passive an approach and that market forces might end up working against affordable housing unless this commitment is made in the comprehensive plan. When asked by the commission to give some input on the issue, City Attorney Jamnik said that this area of the law is somewhat "in flux" at present. There is disagreement about the extent of a city's authority to require as a condition of development the inclusion of low and moderate income housing. Although at least one local city has passed such an ordinance it has not been tested in court. He would advise against a "hard and fast statement" in the comprehensive plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Noble, Jones emphasized that the draft • comprehensive plan assumes that there is no intent on the part of the University to sell any of its land in Falcon Heights or private development. One implementation provision included in this plan is the removal of dual zoning from the public land so that the comprehensive plan would have to be amended if the public institutions ever sell their land. This gives the city more leverage if it ever does happen. The question was called. By a show of hands the motion was defeated, 3 in favor, 4 opposed. Commissioner Rodich proposed a new motion to echo the intent of Lukermanri s motion by adding a more "broad stroke' affordable housing statement in the vision and values portion of the plan. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that affordable housing is not a value but a means to an end, that end being a community that is economically and culturally diverse. Ms. Lukermann added that an important part of being a livable community is to provide housing that enables people to live near where they work - in particular University employees. Jones suggested incorporating these goals into the of the values statements: "Maintaining our traditional neighborhoods in this central Metro location, with opportunities for all our generations to stay in the city." Rodich accepted this suggestion and restated his motion, which was seconded by Salzberg. The motion passed unanimously. • The Chair asked for any further comments before a final motion. Anderson ointed P out that the page numbering does not match the document sections after Section IV. City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008 -Page 2 of 3 Jones said that the page numbering refers to the pieces into broken to facilitate downloading from the Internet, not t Which the document was apologized for any confusion this ma cause. Co he document sections, and of typos and other minor errors. y mmissioners pointed out a number Commissioner Watkins moved that the Co draft with the addition specified in the previous motion. Se e ad approval of the coinrnissioners seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. ELECTION OF COMMISSION VICE-CHAIR As requested at the last meeting, the Commission elected a Vice Cha' Commissioner Noble nominated Commissioner Lukermann as Vice C ' elected unanimously. hair. She was INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Jones announced that she has received the brochure for spring tx'ainin f Government Training Service which offers several coursed that are hi hl om recommended. As the brochure arrived too late for inclusion in the pa y Lukermann announced a noon forum coming up on April 18 at the Hum Institute on mandatory inclusionary housing, the topic under discus ' prey evening. She will email the information to staff for distribution to the rest of the commission. Jones reminded the Commission and the viewing audience that the second comprehensive plan open house will be held on Thursday, Apri13, at 6:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008 -Page 3 of 3 • Planning Commission 4/22/08 ITEM: Petition for vacation of Walk 4 to 1742 Tatum Street SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Zoning and Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Justin Miller, City Administrator Roger Knutson, City Attorney EXPLANATION: Background/Property Description: Walk 4 is a 12 foot by 152 foot strip of city owned land betweenl742 Tatum and 1748 Tatum. No record has been found of it's original purpose. The staff theory is that it once provided pedestrian access from Tatum to Lindig Street before Lindig was extended to the north. It has not been used as a walkway for many years and owners of adjacent properties have gradually extended their landscaping into the parcel. • The city has received a petition from Joseph Youn, owner of 1742 Tatum, to vacate Walk 4 to combine with his property. Mr. Youn first learned of the existence of Walk 4 when he contacted city staff regarding some proposed improvements on his property. After learning the procedure required to acquire his half of Walk 4 to be joined to his property, Mr. Youn approached his neighbor at 1748 Tatum to find out if the neighbor would be interested in petitioning the city for vacation of the parcel, to be divided between the two adjacent residential properties. When the neighbor declined to participate, Mr. Youn and his wife applied to the city to vacate the entire Walk 4 parcel to them. State statute defines a standard procedure for vacation of a public way. The vacation must be by resolution, adopted by 4/5 of the Council after a public hearing preceded by two weeks published and posted notice and 10 days mailed notice. After the resolution of vacation is adopted, the city clerk prepares a notice of completion which is recorded with the county. Analysis• City staff have not been able to find any record of utility or other easements on Walk 4. The strip of land does not have a Property Identification Number for Ramsey County and has no information attached to its property record. For at least 20 years Walk 4 has not been used as a pedestrian right of way and has been used by the adjoining property owners as part of their yards. Staff have determined that the city has no interest in . retaining Walk 4 as a right of way. Staff Report: Vacation of Walk 4 Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission, April 22, 2008 Comments from Residents: No comments were received in advance of the public • hearing. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the petition. Attachments • Application/petition from owner of 1742 Tatum • Site map from Ramsey County GIS • 2006 aerial photo of the properties • Legal notice published April 8 and mailed to owners of properties within 350 feet on April 10. • Letter to property owners within 350 feet • Resolution for the City Council • Minnesota Statute §412.851 Actions Repuested: • Hold a public hearing on the vacation of Walk 4 • Make a recommendation to the City Council • Staff Report: Vacation of Walk 4 Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission, Apri122, 2008 • NO. CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION Date: A RESOLUTION VACATING WALKWAY WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851, after two (2) weeks' published and posted notice of the hearing and after mailing written notice of the hearing at least ten (10) days before the hearing to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation, the Falcon Heights City Council has conducted a hearing to consider the vacation of the walkway easement legally described as: Walkway 4 as it abuts Lot 9, Block 1, Labalestra Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, it appears that it is in the public interest to vacate the walkway easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota: • 1. The walkway easement legally described as: Walkway 4 as it abuts Lot 9, Block 1, Labalestra Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota, is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Auditor and County Recorder/Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED by the Falcon Heights City Council on , 2008. Peter Lindstrom, Mayor ATTEST: Justin Miller, City Administrator/Clerk • 137711x01 ~~ City of Falcon Heights Planning Application Action Requested By: Name of Property Owner __ (~(~~~- 5~~~1 p (~ Phone (h} _,~ ~/- ill ~ pG~ ~ .(~_~G ~ -f - Z~1/, Address of Property Owner I~q-2 ~"A~,r~u__Srt„ ~(~~ ~;,,~~~, M~1 .aPR ~ fi 2Q~~ Name of Applicant (if different) Address Phone Property Involved: Address ~~ 2 ? ~ Z ~i , „~ ~ Fc~ { ~ o N ~ 1 ~ ~,~. Legal Description L o ~-__~' , _~ to c k I , l..ta ha t< c atrr, ~r~ Sl ~ 3 a~ot .z~u.l~ ccb~cfhrt~ t-~F ~'~ ~~c(~ !~ GctbaltS ~Z~'jc Property Identification Number (PIN} ~ ~ 2 9 z 33 ~l o o y ~ ~ ~/~~,~ ~J --- Present Use of Property (check one}; ^ Single Family Dwelling Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ^ Multi Family Complex Action Requested (NON-REFUNQA8LE}: ^ Variance ($100.00) ^ Conditional Use Permit ($165.00) ^ Rezoning ($500.00} O BusinesslCommercial ^ GovernmenUlnstitutional Ia1 Vacant Land O ~+ ry O Lat Split ($250.00) ^ Site Plan Review ($100.00) +~ ~9 Other (Please Specify} ~ l oo. op `~`~ cafe Brief Summary of Request (applicant may submit letter to Planning Commission with details of request): ~~, ~ ~1'I~ P~p~'~ Ou11~i~fi~i ~ LUDU~ Ik ~ r~ V~ 7>f~ I~A~~ WAS A~.I p A~bb ~~ nur~. ~p~i ~ . 1 certify that afl statements on this application are true and correct: Signat a of Property ner (required) Signature of Applicant (if applicable) S:~BUILDING PERMITS ~ ISSUEStZoning and Building FormsIPLANNING APPIIGATION.doo 3/29/2005 FALCON HEIGHTS ... S`,e 3l~~ ; La Vii' ~ .~_ Lear Property Clw~er; I It ~. ;t) a ' t: i.} ~~' i~ 'tt ~"!..' 'L ~(,i The City of Falcon.. k~eights has received an application to vacate a piece of public land known as Walk4 tv the abutting property at t 742. Tatura~ Street. A map of the parcels is attached to this tetter~ A public hearing, to consider this matter wit[ be held an the date stated. below, at the September meeting. of the City Planning t'.ommissian. • Tttesda , A rii 2Z, 20t?8 ~' P 7.flQ p.m. City 11Fa11 Coe~nct Chambers A copy ofthe published legal notice is enclosed, We encourage you to attend the hearing: to s with the ~amznission any comments. or concerns. you tray have on this matter. t'tease call b59-792-7613 ifyou i~you have arty questions or wish to have your comments recorded before the meeting. You may also send written comments tv me at City t~tall r~r by email to deb jones~a fatcc~nheights.org, Sincerely, r peborah 1c-~xes Zoning and Planning T3irector MNtl,~;iE C;F ?'4ii* 7v11t+;NE`~t>'•A `iiiTE t i~(> A'~e~ ±E `= iv4 '.. ~' )TE t ~' :F~~ E.f~ CITY OF FALCGN HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PUBLIC HEAR.I7vG NOTICE NQTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Falcon Heights Planning Commission will meet on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at approximately 7:00 p.rn. at Falcon Heights City Hall, 20?? Larpenteur Avenue West, Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113, to consider the vacation of a sidewalk easement described as follows: Walkway 4 abutting 1724 Tatum Street, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, Lot 9, Block 1, Labalestra Park. All persons wha desire to speak on this issue are encouraged to attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Additional information can be obtained by contacting the City of Falcon Heights at (651) 792-?600. Dated: ~/i ~ O~ , 2008. Ju filler, City Administrator/Clerk City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota • 137710vo1 • 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four- fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water, written notice of the petition or proposed resolution must be served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 60 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. At least 15 days prior to convening the hearing required under this section, the council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources to review the proposed vacation. The commissioner must evaluate: (1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so; (2) the present and potential use of the land for access to public • waters; and (3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. The commissioner must advise the city council or its designee accordingly upon the evaluation. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." The notice shall then be recorded with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any vacation proceedings. • • Planning Commission Item 2 x/22,/08 ITEM: City Moratorium on Dynamic Signs SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Zoning and Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Justin Miller, City Administrator Roger Knutson, City Attorney EXPLANATION: Background: On March 12, 2008, Falcon Heights City Council adopted an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting the issuance of permits for designated signs as outlined in the attachments, and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for their review and input. From the City Administrator's staff report to the Council, March 12: • "The city's current sign code, while slightly adjusted during the recodification process a few years ago, has remained mostly unchanged over the past several years. During this time, technology has changed to make certain sections of our code somewhat outdated. New technology now allows for smaller signs to use eye-catching techniques such as moving pictures and text, bright flashing lights, and the use of an array of colors. While we have not faced a proliferation of changeable electronic signs in our city, other cities have experienced challenges in making these signs fit their respective community standards. Since we have two major thoroughfares that run through our city, it is highly likely that we will be approached in the future for some version of these signs. "Staff believes that our sign code, as it relates to electronic (or sometimes called dynamic) signs, needs extensive review by the public, planning commission, and the city council. In order to do this in a manner which is fair to all parties concerned, staff is recommending that asix-month moratorium on these signs be enacted. This six-month period will allow staff and the planning commission adequate time to study alternatives and bring a recommendation back to the city council for your approval." The temporary prohibition expires September 10. In order to meet this timetable, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation by July 22, if possible, and proposes the following schedule: • Apri122: Introduction to the topic Preliminary discussion in workshop Staff Report: City Council Moratorium on Designated Signs Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission, Apri122, 2008 Give direction to staff on research May 27: Take comment from the public. (The opportunity will be publicized by website, email and flyer, and by letter to city businesses.) Review staff research June 24: Take comment from the public. Arrive at a consensus on direction for the city. July 22: Review draft amendment to the sign ordinance Make a recommendation to the City Council September 10: Council action Action Requested: Prior to the meeting Review the attached documents Review the sign code, Chapter 113, Article IV of the city code (not attached) If possible, read the research report prepared for the City of Minnetonka by SRF Consulting group available on the League of Minnesota Cities website at http:/ /www.lmnc.org/ pdfs/ LMCITMemos/SignStudy.pdf At the commission meeting: • Staff will make a brief introductory presentation • Commissioners are encouraged to follow up with questions to City Attorney Jamnik who will be present. Adjourn to workshop: • Begin preliminary discussion • Formulate requests to staff for research. Attachments: • Ordinance 08-01 temporarily prohibiting the issuance of permits for designated signs • "Regulating Dynamic Signage" memo from the League of Minnesota Cities. • ., Staff Report: City Council Moratorium on Designated Signs Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission, Apri122, 2008 ItAMSIaY CC3LTltii'1'Y, MII<INESQTA C}T{I3INANCE ~C}.06-01 AN N1'EILIM E)ktDINANCE 1'EIW~'OIi~AItILY FRQHIBTTING ~'HE ISSUANCE`QF PERIVIITS FtJI~k DESIGNATED SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL ©F FALCQN HEIGHf'1'S QRDAINS SE..~ DEFIIVI;I'IOIVS: The following terms when used in this ordinance shall. CHANGEABLE CtJPY SIGN, ELECTRONIC. A sign or portion. therecif that displays electronic, nonpictvrial text infot7m~aton in which each alphanumeric character, graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of Light emitting di+ades (LEDs}, fiber optic, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area, Electronic changeable copy signs include computer. programmable, microprocessor controlled. electronic displays. Electronic changeable • copy sil*ns include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto. buildings or o Electronic c~-ar+geawbte copy signs do not include official signs. DESIGNATEfi.- SIGN: Changeable copy signs electronic, t#ynamic display sign; electronic graphic display sign; flashing sign; rnultivsion sign; shimmering sign; video display sign. DYI~fiAMIC DISPLAY. Any clf~aracteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent :movement or change is in the display, the sign structuare ar any ether component of the sign. This ir~ludes displays that incorporate technology or methods :allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physicaAy or mechanically replace the sign face or its components as well as any rotating,, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking or animated display arts any. display that incorporates stating panels, LED fights ma~pulated through digital input,. digital ink or any ether method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays, ELECTRQNIC GRAPHIC DtSi'LAY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic,.. static images, static graphics or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small. number of matrix elements using different combinations of tight emitting diodes (LEDs},fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices • witl.in the display area where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately ar by means of fade,. repixaliaation or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic dis la si include co uter ro amrnabie, micro rocessar controlled electronic ax • . p Y mp R ~ P digital displays. Electronic graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects, .,_ FLASL-LING SIGN. A directly or indirectly illuminated signor portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color ;effect by any means,. so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming, graphic bursts showing movement, or any made of lighting which resembles zooming, twinlclirtg or sparkling. IvIULTTVISION SIGNS pn~ sign composed ir- whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slats. or cylinders that are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and where properly functioning allows an a single sign structure the display at any given time one of two (2} csr more images, OFFICIAL SIGN: Signs of a public nvncammexcial nature .including public notification signs, safety signs, traffic signs, direction. to public facilities when erected by csr on behalf of a public official. or employeeln the performance of official duty, SI-IILvIMERII~IG SIGN: A sign which reflects an oscillating sometimes distorted visual uanage • SIGN: Any letter, word or symbol, Paster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement.-announcement, .message or visual .,m. communication, whether painted, .posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all. associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purpcsses, VIDEO DISFI.AY SIGN: -A sign that changes its message or background in a manner c-r method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, which may 4r may not. include #ext and depicts action or a special effect to imitate movement, the presentation of pictorials or graphics displayed in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion, including, but not Limited. to, the illusion of moving objects, moving patterns or bands at' Tight, or expanding or contracting shapes, nest including electronic changeable copy signs. Video display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings ar other objects... SECTIEIN Z, INTENT: It is the intent of this ordu7ar-ce to allow the City of Falcon l-leights time to complete an in-depth study concerning .changes in affiECiaL conirQLs for Designated Sg,~ts, and in the interim. to protect the plainrwtg process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. SECTION 3. TEMPQRARY PRQHIBTfIC)N Pending the completion of the above • referenced study and the adaptive of appropriate a£ficial caetroLs, no sign permit, variance, • electrical Permit ox o#her a~-praval; ~ prcxessed ar approved and no a plicatiori for ~' such approvals shall be a+#ed for Uesigna#ed Signs. SIvCTIUi~i 4. EFFfr ~ DATE: This ordinances shall take effect from and after its passage and shall rerY~ain in effect until the date of the ade~ptivan of the official rontrot~5 contemplated hereunder or .~ae~temE~er 1Q, 20th wllic~tever ix'curs fiat. ADt)D this 12th day of March, , by the Ci#y +~o~u»c~zl t~f Fal~~r~ Heights, Minnesota.. C?F FA[.CQN NEIGI '~ i Fetc~r Lindstrom, Manor _~ • j~AGUE o~ CONNECTING & INNO'V'ATING • j~/~INNESOfiA SINGE 1913 CITIES REGULATING DYNAMIC SIGNAGE Executive summary Cities have authority and responsibility to regulate dynamic signs as appropriate for each community. There is no single correct approach to regulation. Because the regulation of signs involves the First Amendment, courts hold sign regulations to a higher standard than most land use regulations. Cities still have considerable discretion to regulate, as long as they do so reasonably and without regard to sign content. Introduction In the fall of 2006, a number of Minnesota cities were surprised by the appearance of large electronic billboards akin to giant television screens. These signs are the next generation of sign displays with the ability to feature changing images and movement-known collectively as dynamic signs. Attempts to regulate them resulted in litigation in at least one community- Minnetonka. In developing a regulatory response, Minnetonka partnered with the League of Minnesota Cities to commission a study, conducted by SRF Engineering, on the impact of such • dynamic signs on traffic safety. This memorandum discusses the legal framework of regulating dynamic signage in light of the recent litigation and study. Regulatory framework While the federal and state government can enact and have enacted laws regulating signs, those regulations only provide minimum standards. Courts have explicitly recognized that cities have the ability to regulate signs, including dynamic signs, more restrictively. There is no uniform system of regulation that cities must follow. Each community is different and has different needs that local ordinances may reflect. Such regulations must meet the same basic legal tests for all sign regulation. Most city land use decisions get a very deferential standard of review known as rational basis review. Under this level of review, city decision will be upheld if they have any rational basis. Because sign regulations implicate free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment, they are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. The highest level of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny, applies when government tries to regulate based on the content of speech. The only content-based sign regulation that courts have upheld is treating off-premise signs (billboards) differently than on-premise signs that advertise the business on the same property. One distinction that may seem like it is content based, but our federal court of appeals has said is • not, is a ban on dynamic signs with an exception for time and temperature displays. The court held LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES iss vHn-~srnr~vE.wfar rya t651) ~S1-100 e+u~ {bs1) ~i iz9e INSURANCE TRUST a~ r~-uk ~ a~sa~a---~o~ ~ou.~ tBtx~I ~-11~ w~wwwla~co~ that because of their unique nature, allowing only time and temp displays is not a prohibited • content-based regulation. It is important not to overstate this, however. Regulations that go further and carve out a broader exception for "public information" are likely to be struck down as impermissibly content-based. Sign regulations that are not content based are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which tests whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. This roughly translates to "regulate for a good reason." Cities should take care that the scope of the regulation is not excessive when viewed in light of all of the regulatory objectives, and that they do not create exceptions to the regulations that cannot be justified by reference to one or more of the city's articulated objectives Big-picture regulatory tools The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content-neutral limits or even bans on dynamic signs for safety reasons. The studies confirm that billboards can tend to distract drivers, dynamic features contribute to the distraction, and even short distractions can increase the risk of accidents. This is not surprising as promotional materials put out by sign companies themselves boast the signs' ability to hold viewer attention as a benefit of dynamic signs. Safety is only one concern. Cities may also regulate signs based on values, preferences, and aesthetics. Not every sign is appropriate in every community or every neighborhood. Not every community wishes to become Las Vegas or even downtown Minneapolis. • Cities can take a number of different macro-level approaches to regulation. Some examples include: 1. Complete or near-complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all. 2. Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations. 3. Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in a downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods. 4. Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for removal ofnon-conforming static signs. 5. Encourage dynamic displays. Some communities like the clean, new look of dynamic signs and encourage them to remove old blighted and poorly maintained signs. Regulating sign aspects A content-neutral regulation that regulates dynamic signage will be subject to intermediate scrutiny, so a community must show a regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. In plain language, you must articulate what problem a regulation is intended to address and how the regulation addresses it. There are at least six aspects of dynamic signs that regulations may address: 1. Duration of messages speed of changeover. Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver's desire • to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to 2 negatively impact drivers' tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane. To address these issues, many cities have imposed minimum message durations that might vary depending on • community preference and traffic conditions. 2. Motion, animation, and video. Motion can range from simple visual effects to full realistic video. Motion can extend the period of time a driver will keep watching a sign, increasing distractedness. Cities may prohibit motion or limit it either to specific areas or to specific characteristics such as a motion time frame calibrated to traffic speed. 3. Brightness Brightness can be a safety factor, particularly at night, as sudden brightness can be distracting or diminish night vision. A number of communities limit brightness based on time of day and by color displayed. This can be difficult to quantify and measure. 4. Sign placement and spacing. The number of signs and their location can be a big factor in driver awareness. A large number of signs can increase distractedness. Poorly placed signs may block views or cause distraction in unsafe areas. Cities may impose site standards and spacing requirements. These may present regulatory challenges as spacing maybe dependent on the actions of neighboring property owners. S. Size of signs. Size can have impacts in several ways. Too big, and it obstructs views and distracts. Too small, and it takes longer to read and encourages sign users to sequence messages. Cities may limit dynamic signs or the percentage of a sign that can be dynamic. 6. Text size and legibility. Signs that are difficult to read invite increased driver focus. Regulations • can, for example, require minimum sizes based on road speed. The specifics of how to regulate each of these aspects is up to each community. Because review of regulations must face intermediate scrutiny, cities have to take some extra steps when drafting and adopting ordinances. For each aspect regulated, cities should consider adopting findings or local studies that articulate the reason and any support for the regulation. The SRF study and other materials can provide a scientific basis for a number of regulatory steps. In addition, cities may choose more stringent regulation in order to take a conservative approach to protecting safety. Moving forward It is recommended that cities think about dynamic signs as early as possible. Regardless of your city's approach, it is better to make a rational choice rather than by having dynamic signs arrive before you have thought about the issue. Once the signs are up, Minnesota's nonconforming use law arguably grants them "grandfathered" status, with a narrow exception for safety. If your city would like more information about regulating dynamic signs, Paul Merwin, LMCIT Senior Land Use Attorney, can provide assistance and refer you to more information and resources. Contact Paul at (651) 281-1278 or pmerwin(a~lmc.or~. • Disclaimer: This memorandum is intended as general information only and should not be read as legal advice or as creating anattorney-client relationship. This memo addresses general concerns and has not been reviewed in the context of a specific client or situation. This memo was drafted as a loss control document and is intended to avoid conflicts rather than form an opinion as to the legality or defensibility of any action. Last updated: 7-26-07 • • 4