Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes08_0624City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2008 PRESENT: Commissioners Anderson, Hasegawa, Noble, Rodich, Salzberg, Watkins. Also present were Council Liaison Laura Kuettel, City Attorney Joel Jamnik and City Administrator Justin Miller. ABSENT: Commissioners Lukermann, Staff Liaison Jones A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by the chair at a few minutes past 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the May 27, 2008, meeting were approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: CITY COUNCIL MORATORIUM ON PERMITS FOR CERTAIN SIGNS The chair opened the public comment period. There being no one who wished to speak, the public comment period was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The chair opened the commission discussion by calling for comment from commissioners. Commissioner Noble, who lives close to the B-3 district said she had heard from a number of her neighbors and that they are opposed to allowing any dynamic display or LED signs. Commissioner Salzberg asked if it is that clear that these signs are more intrusive than static illuminated signs, and Noble said that was her question. She felt that if the signs were limited to one change every 24 hours they would be clearer, that it is the flashing, motion, transitions that are the most “nuisance”. The B-3 district is our most heavily traveled area; the other districts are too residential. Salzberg expressed concern that a 24 hour requirement would preclude things like time and temperature signs. Commissioner Anderson said that she had learned that the number of accidents had gone up in the area of a dynamic sign in Eagan. She had also discovered that a sign at the Dallas airport giving gate information had been taken down because of a higher accident rate there also. So despite the information provided to the commission by the sign vendor, there are problems with traffic safety. “Scanability” has a lot to do with it. In her experience of driving past signs that change only once a day she has noted that it is more distracting to her than static signs. We’re all used to scanning time and temperature signs. She also has a concern about how “green” this technology is with respect to energy use and she feels these signs are probably not appropriate in a high traffic area with a history of many accidents. Commissioner Watkins said he feels it is better to have a very low rate of message turnover and that the other cities’ restrictions on brightness and transitions were a good idea. He and Noble both expressed concerns about enforcement, which has been an issue for other cities. Commissioner Hasegawa said it is important to place very clear boundaries with clear measures for enforcement. The city needs to have specific limits for size and distance from residential areas and brightness. This would fall into the area of public safety. One city even had limits on sound effects. Salzberg summed up the concerns so far: impact on neighbors, safety and energy use. Noble added esthetics. Anderson noted that in Dallas the neighborhoods with dynamic signs had quite a different esthetic quality than what is considered appropriate in Falcon Heights – much more commercial. Commissioner Rodich suggested that restricting the percentage of signage that could be dynamic would be an incentive to businesses to consider whether they might not be better served by a larger static sign. Commissioners discussed the function of time and temperature signs, whether they were more of an “attention getter” or an amenity. Hasegawa reviewed the regulations in Bloomington and noted the general similarities to our code with the added specifics for dynamic signs. He feels the more specific regulations we have, the less contentious it would be. He suggests following the Bloomington model. Anderson objected that Bloomington is making the effort to be much more of a commercial center, while Falcon Heights is more residential. She asked “Why do we need to permit these signs at all?” Hasegawa said he felt that the specific restrictions, such as in Bloomington, would rule out the objectionable ones. Watkins brought up the concern from two meetings ago that prohibiting dynamic signs altogether would be a legal risk to the City. City Attorney Jamnik described how a total prohibition might be considered arbitrary and capricious by the courts, which is why many cities allow at least gas station price signs and time and temperature. Salzberg asked if there is some way of differentiating content like time and temperature or gasoline prices from advertising. In response to a question from Anderson, Jamnik said that Bloomington has not had any challenges. Most of the other cases he knows of have been settled. The system has more or less “settled” and cities have a “menu of options” that have been fairly well established in the Twin Cities, and as long as Falcon Heights does not stray too far from them, the city should be in a relatively “safe harbor.” In this part of the country there is strength in numbers. It is up to the city which options it chooses. Watkins asked if commissioners had any preferences among the other city ordinances provided as examples as a model. He pointed out that Arden Hills seemed the most restrictive at the moment, although theirs is subject to change when their area plan is done. Rodich asked if dynamic signs could be a conditional use, perhaps with the exception of time and temperature? He would be in favor of that. He also sees the text only signs as being less problematic than full video. Jamnik advised the commission that the conditional use permit is used for uses that are expected to be allowed. The default is to allow, with conditions; it is very difficult to say no. He also cautioned that requiring a conditional use permit could be considered prior restriction from a freedom of speech standpoint. In response to a further question from Rodich, Mr. Jamnik said he would advise against a blanket requirement of a conditional use permit for all dynamic signs. An appropriate limit might be for gas stations, which are already a conditional use – making it part of that. Anderson said that in Minnetonka they were finding out that people were distracted even by the expectation that the sign would change, no matter how infrequently it changed. Maybe even a day is too short; a week might be more appropriate. She guessed this would not be a problem with respect to the courts. Salzberg noted that some cities, including Forest Lake, seem to create most of the restriction in the way they craft definitions. Commissioners suggested that staff come up with good definitions. Salzberg went on to say that he likes the idea of allowing LED signs because they might use less energy than floodlit signs and that having the capability of changing for time and temperature and prices might be a good thing. Anderson expressed concern that new technologies could render new definitions obsolete, that the city needs something fairly “robust” to accommodate new technologies. Commissioners found similarities among definitions used in several cities. Some cities exclude signs that change infrequently from their definition of “dynamic.” Salzberg said then it would be all right to have a sign that could change more often as long as it did not change frequently. What we do not want is people expecting change as they drive by. There was additional discussion about driver expectations and distraction effects related to duration of message. Anderson said she does not feel that dynamic signs are even that effective a marketing technique. Noble asked if the city might then prohibit dynamic signs in B-3 (on safety grounds) but allow in other commercial districts with less traffic. Hasegawa said he felt restrictions on brightness would be fairly important because all of these areas are close to residential districts. Commissioners discussed monitoring and enforcement implications of brightness and transition limits and other possible restrictions. The chair then proposed looking at the slate of options present in the staff report and seeing of some of them could be eliminated. Commissioners quickly eliminated the option of letting the moratorium expire without making any changes to the city code. After discussion of the other options, the commission seemed to move toward a consensus in line with an option that would allow dynamic signs within defined limits as to district, setbacks, size, change frequency, brightness and other regulatory dimensions. Noble wondered how existing signs would measure up regarding brightness, compared to any proposed dynamic signs. Watkins felt the conditional use option should also be eliminated. City Administrator Miller asked to review the consensus of the commission in order to get clear direction for staff in formulating a draft ordinance for consideration next month. His sense of the commission’s discussion was that it favors allowing dynamic sign in some districts with some specific restrictions on factors such as distance from residential property, size, percentage of allowed signage, brightness, number of colors, duration of message, etc. The commission confirming this, Miller said that a draft would prepared. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Salzberg announced that he is leaving the Planning Commission to go on sabbatical in San Diego. Councilmember Kuettel and the commission wished him well. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison This record was based on the video recording of the meeting.