Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-05 Planning Comm. AgendaAGENDA CITY OP' LITTLE CANADA PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005 1. Call To Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes -September 8, 2005 PRESENTATIONS: 4. Comprehensive Sign Plan relative to pylon sign with electronic reader board - 2768 Rice Street - AE Sign Systems Correspondence Pages 1 through 40. 5. Rezoning of Gervais Mill Park and Nadeau Park from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Public (P) Correspondence Pages 41 through 45. 6. Other Adjourn o- tY7AYOR Bill Blesener ~' COUNCIL Jim IaValle •{ D ~ •~~// ~G~~ / Ricic Montour /i//alL (}//~C /ifj (e %CLChCG Barbara Allan John Keis 515 Litfle Canada Road, Liffie Canada, NIIV 55117-1600 ADMINISTRATOR (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 Joel R. Hanson www. ci.little-can ad a. mn. us~ CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUD PERMIT, COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a PUD Permit to allow a sign fabricating/manufacturing company, a Comprehensive Sign Plan, and Architectural Review. The property in question is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). APPLICANT: AE Sign Systems 2768 Rice Street Little Canada, MN 55113 PROPERTY OWNER: William Mellgren 1048 Payne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55101 PROPERTY LOCATION: 2768 Rice Street Little Canada, MN 55113 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 8, 2005 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, September 8, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, September 28, 2005. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. 1-Ianson, City Administrator - 1 - 2 V Existing Pylon Sign Mach One Sign is 4'x14'=56sq ft Sign Below is new AE Sign face fora 4' x 8' sign = 32 sq ft NoRTI-BWEST ASSCoCIATED CC)NSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone; 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.23'1.2561 planners@nacpla nning.com MEMORAN®UM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: September 1, 2005 RE: Little Canada-AE Sign Systems PUD Permit FILE NO: 758.09 - 05.27 Background and Analysis Land Use AE Sign Systems is seeking approval of a PUD Permit to occupy a portion of the Mach One building along Rice Street. The business fabricates signs, and would add signage to the building front and the existing freestanding sign. The PUD Permit involves consideration of the sign proposals as well as the use itself - an office and fabrication use in the City's PUD zone. The PUD District along Rice Street is intended to serve as an office, retail, and service business district. For some businesses, incidental fabrication is an integral part of the commercial activity, which may be more office or retail in nature. The issue for most cases is to define the essential principal use, and when fabrication is merely an incidental accessory use. The applicant has not submitted floor plans or other information about the nature of the use of the building. These details should be provided to the City to verify the consistency of the use with the objectives of the PUD Zoning District. signage The second issue relates to the Sign proposals. The applicant has not indicated any other changes to the exterior of the building. The sign request is comprised of two components. The first is a request to add a 32 square foot wall sign to the front wall of the building and an additional 32 square foot sign face to the existing freestanding sing along Rice Street. The second component of the request is for an electronic sign board that would comprise approximately half of the sign face on the freestanding sign. 4- With regard to the signs themselves, the City's zoning ordinance provides for a total of two signs per commercial premise, plus one freestanding sign. For sign area, the applicant indicates that based on the size of the buildings, up to 190 additional square feet of sign can be accommodated on the site. The applicant is proposing a total of 64 square feet of additional sign area, well within the allowable sign area for the building. would appear that based on this analysis, the proposed signs meet the area and number of signs for the site. With regard to the electronic sign, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit flashing signs, or signs that appear to move. The Architectural Guidelines for this district also state that electronic illumination must be provided only by a steady light, without flashing or blinking. As such, the Electronic Message Board may be approved, but staff would recommend that the message only be permitted to be changed once per day, similar to the practice with hand-changeable message boards. The plans do not address the materials proposed for the signs. The Architectural Guidelines for this district prohibit internally lit plastic panel signs. The city has accepted this design where the message is "reversed out" of a dark background. The applicant should clarify the materials and design of each sign as a part of the Planning Commission's review. Summary and Recommendation The applicant requires a PUD permit to ensure that (1) the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the PUD Zoning District, and (2) the exterior improvements (in this case, signage) are consistent with the design guidelines for the PUD District. The applicant has not submitted a floor plan or a description of the proposed use. It is staffs understanding that some amount of fabrication will be done on the property. If this aspect of the business is minimal, with office and retail service the dominant use of the site, the use should be reasonably compatible with the district and with surrounding land uses. With regard to the signage, the area, number, and location of the proposed signs appear to meet the basic requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the electronic message board raises concerns over the possible flashing or changing of messages. Staff would recommend that if this sign is to be approved, that no more than one message change is permitted per day. The second issue relates to sign design and materials. As noted above, internally lit plastic panel signs are not permitted. The applicant should better identify the materials, colors, and design of the sign as a part of the Planning Commission review. Pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering William Mellgren, 1048 Payne Ave., St. Paul, MN 55101 5- ~~~Cl ~ ~~~ ~~~~ 515 Little Canada Road, Lit19e Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4045 www. ci.little-Canada. mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: October 4, 2005 RE: Sign Ordinance MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Jim LaVallc Rick MonCOUr Barbara Allan John Keis ADMINISTRATOR Joe] R. Hanson Attached is the survey taken of surrounding cities and their practices for handling electronic readerboards and flashing messages. In reviewing the ordinances and speaking with staff at the other cities, the issue of the flashing sign becoming a visual distraction to drivers causing a traffic hazard is a main concern. Along with that, the enforcement of electronic readerboards message display frequency is also of concern for prohibiting this style of sign. Little Canada code allows for an electronic readerboard sign which contained no moving, intermittent, flashing or animated lights. City Staff believes putting standards in place to regulate the frequency of the message rotation would be beneficial from a safety standpoint. Although staff would be responsible for monitoring the signs for frequency, staff believes this would be minimal. City staff recommends that electronic readerboards continue to be allowed under the ordinance with an ordinance clarification that the message must remain constant for 24 hours. H:Uessical\Code Enforcement\Correspondence\COde Enf 2005\October Plashing Sign Memo Plmming.doc -6- () t6 O •~ .~ ~) V }W v t/] V •~ O ~J ~~ W C N E N O E ~ ~ U C iu o ~ ~ s ~ ~ 3 '~ ~ m m U .C p ~ a E ~ m o c ~ N T .- ~ ~ O E ~ ~ U ~ E '~ d G N U U N E C o ~ O ~ >. U c o m - .o s U ~'oE °aa r a ohm N N L ~ U -~°, E .n N O C ~ ~ U Q «L. C W C .m r N ~ m UJ l~ O ~ ~ a E m U > O ° ro ~ E _~ a ~ N ~ m c m ~ .°' s o, N c m m s L U ~ m > „ o a ~ ro o _ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ (0 ~ > N G a, N ~ > U . m ~_ ~L. -~-~~. ISSUE FORTX 2003 Variable Message Signs and Electronic Message Centers Generally speaking, all sign faces can be changed, with varying degrees of difficulty. In some cases, this requires a new coat of paint or a change of mounted letters or other graphic elements. The advent of plastic and its successors in the industry have permitted sign copy to be changed with greater ease than ever before, allowing one to simply pull the entire face out of a sign and install a new one. Outdoor advertising utilizes face changes on a regulazbasis. Even theso-calledneonsignisreally a form of copy change, as its face can be designed to appear quite differentin the daytime than at night. None of this activity has ever been particularly As businesses have focused on the need to communicate in a timely manner to their most immediate potential customers -those driving by the business at a particular moment -they have increasingly focused on ways to display a more timely, directmessage, one thaf can be changed and which says more thanjust the name of the business. Mechanical variable message signs have been around for a long time, and are a highly valuable communication tool for businesses and the community. Like all signs, they communicate directly with the people most likely to patronize the business -those passing the site in a vehicle. And because they provide for easy flexibility in communication, their messages can be timely and relevant, conveying announcements of sales or community events, or expressing opinions, words of wisdom, or humorous sayings. One historic form of changeable copy sign is the graphic display case, most commonly seen at theaters, to display a pictorial that promotes a currently showing film. Similar displays aze often used in other retail and food services businesses, sipnlina 40.pma and are an integral part of outdoor advertising programs that appear in airports and on buses and transit shelters. Recently, new changeable copy systems have been developed which enable easily changed full color graphic presentations. Some of these utilize standard graphic panels that mount on existing systems. Others take advantage of the four- color printing process on vinyl materials either backed with adhesive and temporarily mounted on a sign, or, when translucent inks and vinyl are used, sandwiched between two plastic sheets and placed in a lighted sign cabinet. Early on, theaters were the most prominent users of the form of changeable copy sign known as the marquee. These signs used (and many still do) background panels mounted on internally illuminated cabinets, with metai or plastic tracks on the sign faces to hold individual letters or panels announcing the day's movie showings. Laborers install the letters from either a ladder or a mechanicai extension arm. Other businesses soon picked up on the practice of using the mazquee sign to market products and services. This form of mechanically changeable signage has evolved into a number of different variations, including the gas station price sign, but even its most basic form it continues to be widely used because of its economy and versatility. Many businesses have relied on portable versions ofthe changeable copy sign, often mounted on trailezs or sandwich boards, and placed close to the roadway to enhance visibility. Because the early systems required physical activity to accomplish a change of copy, sign industry professionals began experimenting with mechanical, electromechanical and electrical systems that could accomplish copy changes. One of these innovative variations, which is still in use today, is a display that utilizes a series of scrolls ~ 3fl 314003, 4:45 PM ~' 8 ' V1 E"^y M ` r ~( l J printed with numbers and letters and located behind the display panel. Each of the scrolls could be wined to reveal the number or letter desired to spell out the message. At first, these signs were changed mechanically, but today they are often controlled electronically. A prime example of this type of sign is the typical price board located inside and outside of nearly atl fast food restaurants. This type of sign was the first flawless electronic copy changer. Other early systems included the use of banks of incandescent tight bulbs connected with permanent wiring to form a few predetermined messages, with electrical controllers switching between those messages. This ]amp technology initially evolved into standardized sign cabinets that presented time and temperature displays. The units accomplished copy changes through electromechanical means, using motor-driven banks of cam-operated contacts. Time and temperature units, developed in the 1950s and'60s, were a major technical innovation in electronic signs, however, due to radio interference and vibration problems, a full range ofcopy changes was still impossible. By the mid-1970s, energy consumption had become a concern, and manufacwrers began to focus theirresearch -r- .~ - ~® on the development of energy efficient products. Incandescent bulb units were equipped with elecfric eyes (lightsensors)thatregulateddimmingatnight. Another new product was developed, the electronic flip disc or panel display, which used an electronically controlled matrix of reflective dots or panels, actuated by electromagnetic means, to form letters and numbers. These reflective surfaces were illuminated by hidden fluorescent lamps, and were very energy efficient. Their limited readability and conspicuity, however, propelled researchers onward in their efforts to develop functional low energy products. Meanwhile, taking advantage ofadvances in electronics technology, several companies developed and began selling electronic variable message signs, known as electronic message centers (EMCs). Eventually these efforts came to fruition, and solid state electronics technology enabled the creation of a sign that was durable, reliable, effective, and versatile, allowing copy changes beyond time and temperature display. Electric change panels had become electronic change panels; mechanical controls had become computer controls; and light sources grew increasingly sophisticated. Manufacturers have continued to focus on improving the light source of their displays, with the goal of signline50.DmC 2 3R3I2003, 12:05 PM ~ 9- Like electronic message centers, mechanical variable message signs provide for easy flexibility in communication. Their messages can be timely and relevant, conveying announcements of sales or community events, or expressing opinions, words of wisdom, orhumorous sayings. The provide the business ownerwith a valuable communication tool to reach the people most likely to patronize the business -those passing the site in a vehicle. _J ~_ L is. ,~`a ~ ~>! it ~d i reducing energy consumption and increasing the length of the life of the light source. Today, variable message signs can display high quality images in full color with excellent energy efficiency, as can be predominately witnessed in many coliseum and stadium complexes. The signs utilize computers and electronic circuit boards to accomplish switching of incandescent bulbs, low- voltage bulbs, light emitting diodes, or small CRT tubes (video screens), enabling the display of an unlimited number of messages, with the computer controlling the timing between each message. Electronic circuits also control the brightness ofthe display, allowing afull range of dimming to match ambient light conditions, thus assuring continued readability. -t;- Electronic message center signs range from small panel notification systems to huge scoreboards or entertainment installations, such as those seen in Las Vegas, Nevada. Much of this has become possible through the use of computers, both in the manufacturing of the products and in the systems' operations. The sophisticated hardware that is now available makes maximum readability possible forthe viewer. New signs offer minimal energy use simultaneously with nearly magazine quality images. These displays are now able to display longer messages with full control of timing, so the complete message can be easily read by passing motorists. The message can easily be programmed to change days, weeks, or even months in advance, or on Variable message signs are used by businesses that want the flexibility to control and change their own message to meet their needs and the needs of their customers. • Large corporations have used such devices for years, in forums ranging from sports stadiums to Times Square. They like the ability to advertise their products in a dynamic format in which they can change their messages frequently and easily. • State highway departments have also realized the value of electronic message centers and are increasingly using them to inform and direct traffic in large metropolitan azeas, where government studies have demonstrated their value in easing traffic congestion and increasing traffic safety. Large-scale urban studies are currently being done to expand message center use in this area, with other "intelligent" components, to create integrated intelligent rtansportation systems. Under the Manua] on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), they are used for regulatory, warning and guidance purposes related to traffic control. • Banks have for years used the familiar time and temperature units. • National chains, such as Walgreens, incorporate an EMC in almost every free-standing sign installed at their new store locations. • Small businesses are quickly realizing the advertisingpowerofthesedynamicvisualconununicationdevices as most people in a community look at the signs frequently. Although EMCs have been quite expensive in the past, often costing around $30,000 or more for a small, simple unit, recent technological breakthroughs have drastically reduced production and operating costs, bringing them within an affordable range. • Entertainment establishments, restaurants, casinos, and theme parks use EMCs extensively to create a district or zone effect. i sgnline 40.pmtl 3 I 3I13I2003. 1245 PM - 1 ~ - ~~ All sign faces can be changed, with varying degrees of difficulty Even the so-called neon sign is a form of copy change, as its face can be designed to appear quite different in the daytime than at night. -t'- the spot, to suit the demographics of the people passing by throughout the day or week. This allows the business owner to advertise specials, display public service informatiot, or provide other items of public interest in a manner that can be quickly and easily read by those passing at any given time. Consequently, the effectiveness of an electronic message center is not limited by the space or surface area constraints that hamper business communication on reader boards. ~~ I'dlost Common Types The industry is constantly improvise existing technologies and devising new technolosies. As message center technologies have developed, several display types have become prominent. These displays may present a few lines of copy, or can fill the whole sign The sophistication of electronic "f~ pYdOr 1"estl^aint exists when speech is conditioned message signs is truly amazing an upon the prior" approval of public officials.... The electronic sign technology i 03"dinance Ye ZCireS en aoZn the (el"n2itJ 7" continuing to advance at breathtaking pace. This rapidly wheneve developing technology and message' corresponding fall in technology cos ]ras made it possible for even asmall change a business to produce high-impac author"Zty changeable copy video/graphi displays. Ithas also led to regulatory conflicts, most often due to outdated codes, a stazk misunderstanding of the purpose of on-premise signage, o and false assumptions about traffic safety. Because the regulatory reaction has frequently focused on the electronic message center, the balance of this Signline will focus on these particular signs. However, the principles addressed apply equally to all forms of changeable copy signs. ~ q g b g p p ocess r there is a proposed 'changing of the on a sign. Requil^ing official permission to sign's message is distul^bingly suggestive of to sanction the message itself. " King Enterprises, Inc., et al v. Thomas Township 215 F.Supp 2d. 891 (E.D. Mich, 2002) face with pictures and/or information. The newest technology provides everything from monochrome (single color) to full color, as well as full action to produce television quality pictures and copy. Typically, computers control the signs, switching arrays of light +Y sgnline 40.PmJ 4 3/1312003. 12:45 PM . 1 1 . ne and temperature dis tave common too/s used by banks and lending institutions seeking to brand their sites and become landmarks in their communities. 7~ ^ ai: ~: ~® ~' Electronic message center displays are commonly used in sports arenas and otherpublic facilities because of their versatility, exceptional visibility in virtually all weather conditions, advertising versatility, and attractive and crowd-pleasing visual quality sources to produce images and text. These light sources may include: • LightEmittingDiode(LED)-ThistypeofEMC has a matrix of LEDs. LED electronic sign displays provide good resolution, are energy- efficient, and are long-lasting. LED technology, first developed in the 1990s, has continued to improve, increasing ]fight output and reducing LED degradation, thus extending the life of the LED light source. • Incandescent lamps -This type of EMC uses a matrix of incandescent bulbs. Its messages can easily be seen and read across a wide viewing range and often for a long distance. Multicolored displays can be created by clustering several different colored bulbs together to create pixels, which are then mounted on panels. Incandescent lamp screens aze bright and suitable for operation in direct sunlight. • Wedge-based low voltage lamp -This type of message center consists of small diameter light bulbs with awedge-shaped base inserted into. parabolic reflectors similaz to those found in an automobile taillight. Several bulbs may then be covered with different colored tenses and arranged into pixels. The result is a very bright display that works well in direct sunlight. Like most camp displays, it offers a wide viewing range. • Fluorescent Discs - Aiso known as "flip disc" or "split flap," this technology uses electromagnets to mechanically turn or "flip" discs mounted on pivots in a specific sequence to reveal the reflective material, forming letters l~h ~~ ~ gi ~;~ S; n or numbers. Depending on ambient lighting, the signs can take advantage of sunlight or hidden fluorescent light bulbs to illuminate reflective material on each disc, or pixel. Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) -These signs are virtual television screens, with CRTs mounted in arrays. They are ufilized in very large, expensive message centers to produce full color images, and aze commonly featured in sports arenas. Safety Electronic message centers are not a distraction to drivers; in fact, it is quite the contrary. Their exceptional readability and conspicuity means that EMCs actually increase driver safety. The federal government recognizes the superior communication value of EMCs and uses electronic information panels on many freeways to warn drivers of possible hazards. Its use of portable electronic warning signs at construction or accident sites is also increasing. Airports and state highway departments are also developing expertise in positioning and sizing of these signs to enable the driver to read, reactandmovethroughtrafficwithoptimumsafety. The federal government attd outer reviewers, after conducting numerous studies, analyzing court cases, and reviewing the available literature, have concluded that signs and electronic message centers, if used properly, are traffic safety enhancement devices. Vaziable message signs, whose content can be changed or altered on a fixed display surface, are recognized by the federal government as different from the regulated -l signline 40.pmtl ~ ~ 12 3I13I2003, 1245 PM r '~~___ animated signage, which mimic movement or have hisJt- intensity flashing lights in order to Gain the viewer's artention. The 1958 Federal-Aid Highway Act established federal controls for signs illuminated by flashing, moving or intermittent light. The 1965 Federal-Aid Highway Act did not contain any reference to lighting controls. Federal/State agreements were entered into with all States, however, referencing lighting restrictions on signs in commercial or industrial areas, based on customary usage. Initially, federal rules and regulations restricted the use of electronic message centers on the primary and interstate highway system to displays of time, temperature, and "public service messages." The restriction no longer stands, as it is an obvious instance of content control. Over time, as the technology advanced, the federal government began to reseazch the signs and their impacts on traffic safety. The newer signs allowed for changing messages, and some of these newer signs had been constructed along the highway in certain areas exetnpt from federal controls. The research showed that neither flashing, animafion, nor co c an~e ad im acted traffic sa ery. -. Lt 1978; the Surface Transportation Assistance Act amended the hiehway beautification law to allow on- premise electronic message centers along the Interstate and Federal Aid Primary road systems, subject to individual state law, so lone as the messages were sequenced on and offin a manner that did not constitute "flashing." Congress refrained from settingatimelimit on the sequencing of the messages, instead opting for a "reasonable interval"standard. While the definition of"reasonable interval" is not clear it is evident that any control of copy change time interval must be exercised with caution to avoid those time limits becoming de facto content control. This is a tikely risk as the copy change time interval necessary for effective communications is dependent in par[ on the physical characteristicsofeachmessagecenter. Amultipleline, text only message center is normally likely to display a complete message. In that case, the time interval between copy changes can be several seconds. A short, single line message center operated by a small business may only be able to display a single word at a time. The copy must, therefore, change at a faster rate that enables comfortable reading of the message or ttte business is unable to communicate. The necessary sequence for a message is also dependant on the content of the message, the speed of the traffic, sgnline 40.pmE 6 3H3/2003, 12 d5 PM -~ 1 3 - State highway departments have realized the va/ue of electronic message centers, and are increasingly using them to inform and direct traffic in large metroplitan areas, where government studies have demonstrated their value in easing traffic congestion and increasing traffic safety. ~r~~~~'1__T~-I visibility conditions, arid, not least ofall, demographics of the audience. As the profile on the street changes, the content of the message displayed also can change. When message content on an electronic message center is unduly limited by sequencing restrictions, it interferes with the sign user's ability to effectively communicate with the identifiable demographic on the street at a In 1980, following the 1978 amendment, the Federal Highway Administration commissioned researchers Ross Netherton and Jerry Wachtel to undertake one more study of variable electronic messaging. The researchers set out to prove electronic variable message signs were unsafe. They concluded, however, that no credible statistical evidence existed to support the assumption that electronic or variable message centers negatively impacted road safety. Their report also said that roadside signs provided a stimulus drat helped maintain driver alertness, and increased safety by combating "highway hypnosis." During the subsequent 22 years, no reseach has emerged ~liat contradicts the 1980 finding. -c.- 'Several states have conducted studies on the safety of roadside signs, including EMCs, and none have found an increase in traffic accidents-and in some cases have found a significant decrease inaccidents-related to the signs. Furthermore, nine leading insurance companies were surveyed, and all indicated that they had never received an accident claim involving an advertising sign., Richard Schwab, former Federal Highway Administration program manager for research on highway visibility and night driving safety and Fellow of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, conducted an extensive study that concluded EMCs could not be linked to traffic accidents or to any reduction in traffic safety. {n 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court struck down a state statute that prohibited signs near highways if they contained or included "flashing, moving or intermittent lights except those displaying time, date, temperature or weather ...." See Flying J. Travel Plaza V. CommonweaZtlx, 928 SW 2d 344 (Ky.1996). The court said the state had failed to demonstrate that a legitimate government interest was advanced by the prohibition,, Businesses often select t err advertising medium, and messages, based upon the cost per thousand exposures of their message to the public. On this basis, no other form of advertising comes close to matching the efficiency and cost-effectiveness, dollaz for dollar, of an electronic message display. Compare the figures below: • Newspaper advertising -the cost on average is about $7.39 for 1000 exposures witlrin a 10-mile radius of the business location. • Television advertising -The cost on average is approximately $6.26 per 1000 exposures. • Radio advertising -The cost is about $5.47 per 1000 exposures. • New LED electronic message center display -The cost is less than $0.15 per 1000 exposures. How? Assume, for example, that you spend $30,000.00 on this type of system, and that its useful life is about ten years. The amortized daily cost of the message center would equal about $8.22. Add to this the daily cost of electricity for this new LED unit (approximately $0.20), thus giving your business a daily message center expense total of $8.42. With a daily traffic count of 20,000 vehicles passing your business, you would have a cost of less than $0.43 per thousand exposures (counting drivers only)! Best of all, with a changeable copy sign, a business does not have to worry about missing its tazget audience, becoming "yesterday's news," or facing expensiveproduction costs for changing its message, as happens frequently with the other forms of advertising mentioned. With a changeable copy sign: • The business owns the form of advertising. • The advertising works for the business 241rours a day, 365 days a yeaz, with minimal cost. • The sign acts as the "salesman on the street" attracting customers into the business. • The advertising speaks directly to the potential customers as they drive past the business location. • The EMC can display information pertaining specifically to products available on the premises. • The EMC makes the business a landmark in its community. • The business can select its own market and direct its message to that market at any given time. signline do.oma - 1 4 3113/2003,12:45 PM and said no evidence supported the notion that so li mitin~ the content on the display had "anything to do with highway safety or aesthetics." It is a testament Yq the safety of EMCs that, since 1979, the Federal Highway Administration has not seen any need to revise its recognition ofthe legality of on-premise commercial variable electronic message signage. Electronic message centers -like other types of signage - when properly designed, placed, maintained, and illuminated can actually promote greater traffic safety. Regulations that are overly specific of restrictive could have the unintended consequence of creating a traffic hazard as well as limiting technological advances that might offer greater energy-efficiency and communication EMCs that employ copy change display methods in which each change in the display of lights results in the appearance of a new word, words, or graphic, is emptoying a "copy change." It is not "flashing" or "animation." As long as the messages are sequenced on and off, traffic safety does not pose a legitimate reason to interfere with the copy. Because these signs come in many sizes and varieties, aone-size-fits-all sequencing standard could inadvertently contribute negatively to traffic safeTy by preventing a full "read" of the message within a safe period of time. Furthermore, requiring signf e40.pmtl -~~- '-; ' ' ~® lengthy sequencing of message changes may well fall outside permissible legal constraints, essentially constituting censorship ofthe intended message. Legal Protections for Copy Change The subject of copy and face changes on signs, and exactly how much control regulators should ]rave over it, is riddled with complexities. At this time, due to Federal Highway regulations, flashing, scintillating, or chasing -all of which a quality message unit can do - may be regulated along the federal highway system. What benefit is gained by limiting this technology is basically unknown. The federal law was written decades ago without the benefit of technical substantiation. Federal courts have been clear in restricting sign codes to content-neutral regulations oftime, place and manner of display, but what about copy and face changes? Several cases have bearing on the issue. In Kerlin Gray-East Coast Auto Bod,7~ r. pillage ofN,yack, 566 N.YS.2d (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), a local business changed hands and the new owner wanted to reflect this with a new name for the business; a village ordinance deemed this a change of copy sufficient to require the nonconforming sign to conform before the copy change would be allowed. The Court, however, found that the 1 311314003, 12:45 PM -75- 1N/111L~4f~ message ' ri'Ys a t e ul toot for businesses and public facilities, advances in technology have resulted in the deve opment of the elecfronic message center, which often offers a more aesthetically pleasing appear- ance, as well as greater ease in making copy changes. 7 sign could remain in place and that the new owner could change the copy on it, holding: "Generalty, ... such truthful commercial speech may not be prohibited on the basis of its content alone." This case casts doubt on any regulation that prohibits cha~tging the copy of a nonconforming sign. Several other cases support a sign owner's right to change the face or copy of a sign without interference by a governing body: • Budget !nn of Daplvre, Inc. r. City of Daphne, 2000 WL 184245 (Ala). The Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision similar to that in the 6171age of ,Nyack case, based on a First Amendment analysis and the substantive due process clause of the 14'" Amendment. • ~t /otel 6 Operating Ltd Parmerrlrip r. City of Flagstaff, 195 AZ 569.991 P.2d 272 (1999). The Court ruled that the owners' proposed sign face chances were reasonable alterations to their legal nonconforming signs and, therefore, would not trigger a duty to bring the sign into conformance. -~ I.. -~ ~ Rogers i,. Zaring Bd. Of Adjustment of the Village ofXidgervood, 309 N.J. Super. 630, 707 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1998), aff'd, 158 N.J. 11, 726 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1999). The Court held that a change of sign to indicate a new owner of a legal nonconforming building does not cause the sign to lose its protected status. Ray's Stazeline A4arker, Gac. v. Toirn of Pelham, 140 N.H. 139, 665 A.2d 1068 (1995). The Court ruled that replacing the plastic face panels of two on-premise signs with face panels advertising a new tenant dougltitut franchise would not result in an impermissible change or extension ofthe store's legal nonconforming use, as lettering or copy changes to the existing signs would not affect the signs' dimensions. C.F Royal Food Systevts. Inc. r. ;1dissami HiglnvaJ, and Ti ansp. Com Sr. 876 S. W. 2d 38 (h4o.App. 1994). The Court held that an advertising message on a Bien which fal Is within the nonconforming use exemption under the state Billboard Act can be changed to reflect a change in ownership without rendering the S~Bnline 40.pmtl 9 ~ 1 ~ 3R3I2~09, 1245 PM lecnnotogtcal advances have resulted in spectacular electronic displays, such as this computer-controlled video dis- play in Las Vegas. The sophisticated hardware now available makes messages extremely readable, with minimal energy use, on displays of virtually any size. modified Bien a new erection, and thereby removing it from extension. King Enterprises, Inc., et a1 v. Thomas Toivnsleip, 215 F.Supp 2d. 891 (E.D. Mich, 2002). Here, the Township's ordinance triggered "conformity" upon altering the "message, or content" of the sign itself. The Court determined that the Township failed to establish any justification, under the Cenn~al Hudson four-pronged test, for allowing such a "content-based triggering event," and the provision was found unconstitutional. 1Q Aesthetic Benefits of Flexible Communication The public is on the move, both literally and figuratively, and sometimes catching their attention is like hitting a moving target. Bear in mind that approximately 18.6% of Americans move every year. Whether they move a short or long distance, they usually change their basic trade area. Add to that the fact that l5-35%ofthetraffic on a given street is `just passing through" (vacation travelers and such), and you can see the great potential for single stops by those unfamiliar with the area. Consider further the speed at which traffic passes by the average business. A motorist has only a few seconds to see and comprehend any given sign. In orderto succeed, businesses must find a way to capture the attention of passing motorists within the limited amount of time available, particularly those who are `just passing through." ~'~ Motorists often spot electronic message centers quickly becausethe copy changes andthe letters are illmninated. Additionally, electronic message centers may have greater visibility from further distances, especially in poor lighting conditions, giving the motorist additional time to read the message displayed while safely maneuvering his or her vehicle. Additionally, an electronic or variable message center offers a business a unique way to communicate more effectively with the typical person passing by at a particuiar time ofday by allowing the business to change its message and graphic to match the profile on the street. The local airport in Monmouth, NJ offers a clever example of this flexibility. The airport uses its display to advertise price specials atpeak hours to thosetraveling by on the freeway on the way to and from work. During shopping hours or a8er-school traffic, the airportchanges its display to offer community service messages. This kind of flexibility increases the readership of a message unit, as it can correspond to the traffic profile by the day of the week, the time ofday, or the season. One of the leading reasons for restrictive sign codes is the desire to reduce sign clutter and improve the aesthetics ofthe business district. This goal is frequently followed by tight restrictions on electronic message centers. But if a city is truly trying to cut down on the number of signs or to encourage aesthetically beautiful sign structures, the message center can be a powerful toot. For one thing, changeable copy signs act as a consolidating type of advertising. In other words, they sgnline 40.pmtl ID 3H3BOW, 12:43 PM I 1 Electronic message centers are now being used creatively in outdoor advertising to provide viewers with timely and meaningful information that would have been impossible a few short years ago. JI ~ ~ ~~ h I -~; -I I y . I I_ ,~v'~ /~ Pad%~yiif F~~,' ~15TINCTIVE5INCE H ?~ Bryn ::,~ M~r%, i+af agl~.~~'.,r. y'~ 1'Yv=`. ~ _ ~,. ._ 1. ,t ~,:r~.AAlI^ Vi~/~ywyw~w .l':e. l 4~ '.. P ~ ~ ~,. ~, f. Changeable copy signs have been around for a long Time. Modern technology has simply created more options~'7r' business owners seeking to reach potential customers passing by their sites. Electronic message centers offer greater flexibility and creative, colorful options with enhanced readability, day and night. offer businesses a way of attractively posting a variety of information in one place rather than relying on numerous signs and banners displayed in windows, for example. Consequently, they offer a significant advantage to a district wishing to reduce the use of temporary signs. The Bottom Line For businesses that choose to enhance their signage with a changeable copy sign (this is particularly true with an electronic message center), the owners typically see an increase in business of 15%to 150%. Using the smaller number, consider the following example. A small business generating $1,000.00 a day in revenue adds an electronic message center. The business soon increases by 15%, adding another $I50 per day in total revenue. That translates into an additional $1,050.00 a week in revenue, or $54,600.00 per year. With this example, the iuvestment in the electronicmessage center unit would likely be about one-third of the additional revenue generated in the firstyear of its operation alone. It has been said that in retailing, "the last dollars are the best dollars," meaning that each additional customer adds a greater marginal percentage to the business's bottom line profit. In the foregoing example, we can only speculate upon the actual impact upon profit, but assuming that the business was at or above its "break- even"point before adding the electronic message center, the addition of $54,600.00 per year iir revenue would clearly add to the business's profit. Obviously, increased profits translate into increased tax revenue for the city. B~Bttd tax revenues, a city benefits in many other v~s rotn a thriving business. Innovative cities seek to optimize the return from local retail space to prevent urban sprawl and deterioration. Aesthetics and urban deterioration are closely linked. In an environment where change is constant, if the visual cotnmunication of retail sties is not allowed to be flexible to respond to the marketplace, iY is only a matter of time until the retail community will no longer be able to afford proper maintenance and the design, fixtures and merchandise needed to survive in the changing competitive economy. So if aesthetics, upkeep and improvement of the environment are part of a city's general plan, the city must allow businesses the flexibility to communicate in away that generates a strong consumer response. The electronic message center is one of the most powerful tools available to help the small business attract consumers' attention and commwticate with theu~,..+' 17 sremmn4°pma n ~ 311312003,12:45 PM 1 $ . -l!Y .~ l 12 -~- Changeable copy s;gns come in rnany forms. from those in which entire panels can be removed and replaced. to those With individual letters anc! numbers placed by hand. to those changed electronically. Their exceptional communicative abilities ara highly valuable tv businesses seeking to present a variety of timely information to the passing public. Severn! legal issues m~e discussed Ihrmrghou!!SA's Signline series. Signline is ofjeredfor edncationnt mid iufornrMiorml pu+poses ont7~ and nor m be cmasvued as giving legn! advice ro mm user. Courpetenr legs! advice/ttdrisors should be soagly after mid obtained by die riser: SignlrJre is a public service publication of: [NTERN.4TION.4LSlGN ASSOCIATION 707 N. SI. Asaph Street, Alexandria, VA ?2314-1911 __ Can we help? Amuml subscriptions to .S'ign/inc• are avaiable for S3 (plus IS°o SB:B - S? minirmiml. For more information, call or write: WTERNATIONAL SIGN :1SSOCL4TION sienage.he I pGusiens.orn Phone (R66) U'H}'-SIGN (949-7446): FAX (SOi) 625-605] Par other si;~,na_c resource help see: htgv//~ctros6a.~~ocistarting/signage }~!e++hne StaYf: R. .lames Claus, PhU :~nne Varie ..\lehnon Susan L. Clans \ Thomas Claus Becky !Yliller J signlin6da.Omd t2 _ ,~ 9 3113n003, 12ge PM i - } i .FAA ~~~ ~ ~,~ , ~ ~ '1 ~ '` <us F I N A N C I A L • ~ ~EKUS ~.~~ ~ S..y. ~ ~~-~. n~;: fit' S $ y... 1 az-~ ~,L r '~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ )~ s }x ~.FS"~x~x~ ~ i 5~ ~ Y ~3yi~ x afr .~~~ ~ .~~Y REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS Overview We are all very fortunate to live in a society that places a premium value on freedoms, and limits governmental intrusion upon those freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of those essential freedoms, and one that is embodied within the Constitution that molds the rule of law governing this great nation. Many reputable organizations, like the U.S. Small Business Administration and the International Sign Association caution against sign regulations that interfere with the freedom of exercising commercial speech. The following information has been assembled by a coalition of manufacturers of electronic message display signs. We recognize the uncertainty surrounding the legality of certain sign regulations. We also respect the desire by communities to regulate signs, including electronic message display signs, and the need for responsible sign codes. Without engaging in debate over the legality of regulations affecting electronic message displays, the following materials are intended to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the current state of the technology, and to promote regulations that reflect the broad variations in the use of electronic message displays. The History of Changeable Message Signs In the day when signs were primarily painted, changing messages on a sign merely required painting over the existing message. More recently, signs with removable lettering made it possible to manually change the lettering on a sign to display a new message. Electrical changeable message signs followed the invention of the light bulb, and included light bulbs arranged in a pattern where, by lighting some light bulbs and not the others, letters and numerals could be spelled out. With the advent of solid-state circuitry in the early 1970s, electronic changeable message signs became possible. The first of these products were time and temperature displays and simple text message displays using incandescent lamps. These lamps were very inefficient. They used a great deal of power and had short life expectancies. During the energy crunch of the 1980s, it became necessary to find ways to- reduce the power consumption of these displays. This. need initially spawned a reflective technology. This technology typically consisted of a light-reflective material applied to a mechanical device, sometimes referred to as "flip disk" 27- displays. Electrical impulses were applied to a grid of disks with reflective material on one side of the disk, and a contrasting finish on the other side. The electrical impulses would position each disk within the grid to either reveal or conceal the reflective portion of the device as required, to produce an image or spell out a message. These technologies were energy efficient, but due to the mechanical nature of the product, failures were an issue. Shortly after the introduction of the reflective products, new incandescent lamps emerged. The new "wedge base' Xenon gas-filled lamps featured many positive qualities. Compared to the larger incandescent lamps that had been used for several years, the wedge base lamps were very bright, required less power to operate and had much longer lifetimes. These smaller lamps allowed electronic display manufacturers to build displays that featured tighter resolutions, allowing users to create more ornate graphic images. Next in the evolution of the changeable message sign was the LED. LED (light emitting diode) technology had been used for changeable message displays since the mid 1970s. Originally, LEDs were available in three colors: red, green and amber, but were typically used for indoor systems because the light intensity was insufficient for outdoor applications and the durability of the diodes suffered in the changing temperatures and weather conditions. As technology improved, manufacturers were able to produce displays that had the intensity and long life required for outdoor use, but were limited in the viewing angle from which they could be effectively seen. Recently, breakthroughs in this field have made available high intensity LEDs in red, green, blue and amber. These LEDs have made it possible to produce displays bright enough for outdoor use with viewing angles that are equal to, or better than, other technologies currently available. They are energy-efficient, can be programmed and operated remotely, and require little maintenance. In addition, the computer software has evolved such that a broad range of visual effects can be used to display messages and images. The spacing of the LEDs can be manipulated to achieve near-television resolution. Earlier "flip disk" and incandescent technologies have become nearly obsolete as a result. Types of Changeable lvlessage Signs Changeable message signs can be placed into two basic categories: manually- changed and electronically-changed. The most common form of manually- changed sign involves a background surface with horizontal channels. Letters and numerals are printed on individual plastic cards that are manually fitted into the channels on the sign face. Abroad range of letter styles and colors are available. The manually-changed sign is relatively inexpensive and is somewhat versatile. Some discoloration has been experienced in the 'oacl<ground surface materials 22 with exposure to weather and the sun. Changing the message on such a sign is accomplished by having an employee or technician remove the existing plastic letter cards and replacing them with cards displaying the new message. Occasionally, such signs have been the subjects of vandals who steal the letters or, as a prank, re-arrange them to spell out undesirable messages. Over time, as letters are replaced with lettering styles that deviate in color or type style from the original set, such signs have had a tendency to take on a mix-and-match appearance. Electronic changeable message signs are generally of two types: light emitting and light reflective. Current light emitting display technologies include LED and incandescent lamp. Light reflective displays typically consist of either a reflective material affixed to a mechanical device (like a "flip disk") or a substance commonly referred to as electronic ink. Many of the above mentioned technologies have the capabilities to display monochromatic (single color) or multiple color images. Monochrome changeable message signs are typically used to display text messages. Multiple color displays are more common in applications where color logos or video is displayed. Operational Capabilities of Electronic Signs Electronic signs have evolved to the point of being capable of a broad range of operational capabilities. They are controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program. This software is typically a proprietary component that is supplied by the display manufacturer. These software programs determine the capabilities of the displays. The software is then loaded onto a computer that operates the sign. The computer may be installed within the sign itself, operated remotely from a nearby. building, or even more remotely by a computer located miles away and connected to the sign with a telephone line modem or other remote communication technology. Since most of the software programs are proprietary, one can assume that each. software program is slightly different. However, the capabilities that the programs offer are all very similar. Changeable message sign manufacturers provide software that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer-generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television-quality video. ........ ............... Text messages or graphic images can simply appear and disappear from the display or they can be displayed using creative entry and exit effects and transitions. 3 -23- Example: Oftentimes a display operator will choose to have a text message scroll onto the display and then "wipe-off" as if the frame has been turned like the page of a book. If a display has the capabilities to display graphics, logos or even video, it is common for the display operator to add motion to these images. Example: A display operator at a school may wish to create an animation where their school's mascot charges across a football field and runs over the competing school's mascot. Video-capable displays can operate much like a television. These displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text. All display capabilities are securely in the hands of the display operators. They are ultimately responsible for what type of, and how, information is displayed on their changeable message sign. Traffic Safety Considerations Electronic message displays (EMDs) are capable of a broad variation of operations, from fully-static to fully-animated. In exterior sign use, they are often placed where they are visible to oncoming traffic. Concerns are often raised as communities change their sign codes to expressly permit such signage about the traffic safety implications for signage with moving messages. These concerns are largely unfounded. EMDs have been in operation for many years. As is typical with many technological advances, the regulatory environment has been slow to respond to advances in the technology itself. In 1978, after many years of the use of electronic signs, Congress first passed legislation dealing with the use of illuminated variable message signs along the interstate and federal aid primary highway system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act permitted electronic message display signs, subject to state law, provided each message remained fixed on the display surface but "which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote control," and did not include "any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights." 23 U.S.C. § 131. In 1980, and in response to safety concerns over EMDs along highways, the Federal Highway Administration published a report titled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable- 4 24- Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause traffic accidents. In view of the inevitable use of the technology in signage, the report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for such signs: 1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their sign codes. 2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting such signs to be located at the properly line, with no setback, and angled for view by oncoming traffic. 3. Operations: Duration of message on-time. The report states that the duration of the message on-time should be related to the length of the message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the message element. For instance, based on state highway agency experience, comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the on-time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on-times of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs- ------------ 25- requires only that messages be changed at "reasonable intervals."' Moreover, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in a report on its website reviewing safety information compiled since the 1980 report, has concluded that there is no adverse safety impact from the use of EMD signs. See htto://www.sba qov/starting/signage/safelegal html. The most recent study was performed in 2003 by Tantala Consulting Engineers, available through the U.S. Sign Council at http://www.ussc.org/publications.html, also concluding based on field studies that EMD signs do not adversely affect traffic safety. Many small businesses using one-line EMD displays are only capable of displaying a few characters at one time on the display, changing frequently, which takes virtually no time for a driver to absorb in short glances. These signs have likewise not proven to be a safety concern, despite many years of use. 4. Operations: Total information cycle. EMD signs can be used to display stand-alone messages, or messages that are broken into segments displayed sequentially to form a complete message. As to the sequential messages, the report recommended a minimum on-time for each message "calculated such that a motorist traveling the affected road at the 85'h percentile speed would be able to read not more than one complete nor two partial messages in the time required to approach and pass the sign." 5. Operations: Duration of message change interval and off-time. The report defines the message change interval as the portion of the complete information cycle commencing when message "one' falls below the threshold of legibility and ending when message "two" in a sequence first reaches the threshold of legibility. This is relevant when operations such as "fade off-fade on" are used, when the first message dissolves into the second message, or when the two messages move horizontally (traveling) or vertically (scrolling) to replace the first message with the second. Off-time, on the other hand, is a message change operation that involves the straightforward turning off of the first message, with a period of blank screen, before the second message is instantly turned on. ~ The appropriate interval of message change may be affected by a variety of factors, and one standard does not fit all situations. Imagine, for instance, a bridge that serves two roadways, one with a speed limit of 30 mph and the other a highway with a speed limit of 60 mph. in a situation where the bridge is socked in by fog, an electronic sign on the approach to the bridge may be used to convey the message, "Fog ahead...on bridge...reduce speed... to 15 mph." The driver on each roadway needs to see all the segments to the full message. Tlie rate of changing each segment of the message needs to be different for each roadway. If the change rate were based only on the 60 mph speed, the sign on the slower roadway may appear too active. if the change rate were based only on the 30 mph speed, the result could be i'atal to drivers on the highway,_ 6 26- The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests "that the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." The report further advocates minimizing off-time between messages, where static message changes are used, stating that "[a]s this interval of off-time is lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and comprehension is increased." The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually-stimulating environment along an otherwise mind-numbing segment of highway, helping to re-focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full- animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on highway-oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse effect of traffic safety. r.~ ~, ~~ A3~ x~ ~" i ` b~1 lli!~ Ti \;`' ar.:) sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of full-animatio\ electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full-animation not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative position on operations of such signs along highways, advocating static message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message change interval or "off-time' between messages. The message changes on __ sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such sig 27- change interval or "off-time' between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signs should have adequate spacing between signs, but be set back from the right- of-way as little as feasible. Since 1980, no new information has become available supporting a traffic safety concern about EMDs. They have been installed in highway locations, along city streets and in urban core settings, using all forms of operations: static, sequential messaging and full animation. Despite such widespread use, and the presence of environmental organizations generally adverse to sign displays, no credible studies have established a correlation between EMDs and a degradation in traffic safety. An article in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in Spring, 1997, arrived at the same conclusion. Professor Taylor, of Villanova University, analyzing this lack of data to support such a correlation, concluded that "there appears to be no reason to believe that changeable message signs represent a safety hazard." From a safety standpoint, and based on the studies and practical experience that has been accumulated since the widespread use of EMDs, some conclusions can be reached: • In an urban core setting, where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable, full-animation EMDs have been shown to be viable without degrading traffic safety. • n an urban setting, such as along arterial streets, EMDs have been use ' with static messages changed by use of transitions such as traveling, ~'~ scrolling, fading and dissolving, without any apparent impact on traffic safety. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the primacy of the navigation task, and the secondary nature of roadside signage. r • on n er imit~ess highways, the only significant traffic safety analysis recommends the use of static messages only, and the federal government permits message changes at "reasonable intervals." Many highway departments change messages on their own signs every 1-2 seconds. The report further recommends that sequential messages be timed to ensure that the entire sequence of messages be displayed in the time it takes a car to travel from initial legibility to beyond the sign. In practice, and in the 20+ years since publication of this report, the operational characteristics of such signs have been expanded to include 28- ~ fading, dissolving, scrolling and traveling, without any apparent adverse effect on traffic safety. Regulation of Electronic Signs The history of the regulation of electronic signs has been largely marked by polar extremes in regulation. A number of zoning and sign codes have treated such signs as any other sign, with no special regulations. Others have attempted to prohibit their use in the entirety, largely out of concerns for traffic safety, and in some cases in the stated interest of aesthetics. For the reasons stated above, the traffic safety concerns have been largely _ _ __ unfounded. In decades of use and intense scrutiny, no definitive relationship between electronic signs and traffic accidents has been established. In fact, some studies have suggested that animated electronic signs may help keep the driver whose mind has begun to wander re-focused on the visual environment in and around the roadway. No studies support the notion that an electronic sign with a static display has a visual impact, from either a traffic safety or aesthetic impact, different from that of any other illuminated sign. Despite this, the fear of negative impact from potentially distracting signs has in the past motivated some communities to attempt to prohibit electronic signs altogether. Two common approaches have been to prohibit sign "animation" and the "intermittent illumination" of electronic signs: Both approaches have had their limitations. Electronic signs that are computer-controlled often have the capability to be displayed with a multitude of operational characteristics, many of which fall within the typical definition of "animation." However, static display techniques are quite commonplace with electronic signs, and the cost of using electronics in relatively typical sign applications has become more affordable. The programming of an electronic sign to utilize static displays only is simple and straightforward, yet probably overkill in the legal and practical sense. 'Nonetheless, out of fear that the programming may be changed to animation after a sign is permitted and operational, some local regulators have attempted. to take the position that LED and other electronic signs are prohibited altogether. This position is unsound. There is no legal basis to deny astatic-display electronic sign, as it is legally indistinguishable from any other illuminated sign. We don't _. _. _ . pro i it car usage merely because the cars are designed so that they can exceed the speed limit; we issue a ticket to the driver if they do exceed the speed limit. Likewise, if a sign owner actually violates the zoning or sign code, the remedy is to cite them for the violation, not to presume that they will do so and refuse to issue 2s- 9 permits at the outset. Moreover, most communities permit changing messages on signs displaying time and temperature, with no restrictions on timing. To apply a different standard to signs displaying commercial or noncommercial messages would be to regulate on the basis of the content of the sign, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The code technique of prohibiting "intermittent illumination" has its own limitations as it relates to electronic signs. The term "intermittent" suggests that the sign is illuminated at some times, and not illuminated at others. This is no basis to distinguish between an electronic sign and any other illuminated sign. Virtually all illuminated signs go through a cycle of illumination and non-illumination, as the sign is turned off during the day when illumination is not needed, or during the evening after business hours. If this were the standard, most sign owners would be guilty of a code violation on a daily basis. Other terminology may be used in sign codes, but the fact is that a regulation must be tailored to the evil it is designed to prevent. Community attitudes toward viewing digital images have changed nationwide, with personal computer use and exposure to electronic signs becoming widespread. People are simply accustomed to the exposure to such displays, more so than in years past. In some communities, there remains a concern about the potential that such signs may appear distracting, from a safety or aesthetic standpoint. Yet, static displays do not have this character, and even EMDs with moving text have not proven to have any negative impact. The real focus should be on the operations used for the change in message, and frame effects that accompany the message display. Many of these transition operations and frame effects are quite subtle, or otherwise acceptable from a community standpoint. It is now possible to define these operations, in the code itself, with sufficient specificity to be able to enforce th~ces -' what is acceptable and what is not. The critical regulatory factors in the display of electronic changeable message signs are: 1) Duration of message display, 2) Message transition, and 3) Frame effects. With the exception of those locations where full animation is acceptable,. the safety studies indicate that messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Government users of signs have utilized 1-2 seconds on their own signs as a reasonable interval for message changes, and other communities permit very short display times or continuous scrolling on business signs without adverse effect. As a policy matter, some communities have elected to adopt longer duration periods, although to do so limits the potential benefits of using an electronic sign, particularly where messages are broken down into segments displayed sequentially on the sign. _,,/ The message transitions and frame effects are pro a y the greater focus, from a sign code standpoint. It is during the message transition or frame effect that the eye is most likely drawn to the sign. What is acceptable is a matter of community i 30- 10 attitude. Flashing is a frame effect that is prohibited in many communities, but other more subtle transitions can be accepted. It is relatively easy to define four basic levels of operational modes for message transitions that can be incorporated into a sign code: 1 l Static Display Only (messages changed with no transition) Level 2 ~ Static Display with "Fade" or "Dissolve" transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images Level3 Static Display with "Travel" or "Scrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once Full Animation, Flashing and Video There are, in fact, other operations recognized within the industry. However, in practice they can be equated in visual impact with "fade," "dissolve," "travel" or "scrolling," based on their visual effect, or otherwise be considered full animation. v- Different transition operations may be acceptable in different locations. For example, communities like Las Vegas accept full animation as a community standard, whereas others accept full animation only in urban core locations where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable. Some communities may desire not to have an area with such visual stimuli, and elect to prohibit animation everywhere. However, in such a community, fade or scrolling may be acceptable forms of message transitions for static displays. In the most conservative communities, static displays with no observable transition between messages may be the only acceptable course. ,~.r The next decision point for a community seeking to regulate electronic signs is procedural. Some signs may be acceptable always, while the community may determine that others are acceptable only in certain given circumstances. Alternatives to be considered for a sign code are as follows: • Permit electronic signs "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs with certain transitions "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs, subject to a review procedure 3 1 - 11 • Permit electronic signs, with certain transitions, subject to a review procedure • A hybrid of the above For instance, one community may find it acceptable to permit electronic signs, with full animation, as a matter of right. Other than a straightforward sign permit, no other review is required. In another community, the sign code structure may permit: 1) Static displays with no transitions as a matter of right, 2) static displays using fade or dissolve transitions as a matter of right in certain commercial zoning districts, 3) static displays using travel and scrolling transitions and animations in certain commercial districts, subject to approval of a special use permit, where the approving board can consider compatibility with surrounding land uses and attach conditions on the rate of message changes, and 4) Fully-animated/video displays in the downtown commercial district only, subject to approval of a special use permit. The level of procedure involved should be tailored to the acceptance level of the community, and the resources available should public review be desired. In the following section, we have provided model code language that can be used, for reference, to incorporate into a community's sign code. The model language suggests code scenarios based on each of the four levels of display transitions. It also provides alternative language, for some scenarios, to either incorporate a special review procedure or not. Of course, the model language must be tailored to a particular community's sign code. Variation may be necessary, where, for instance, the special review procedure would be by the local planning commission, city council or design review board. With ease, the model code language can be modified to meet local conditions. © 2004 Electronic Display Manufacturers Association 32 - t2 Model Sign Code Provisions for Electronic Signs Level 1-Static Display (Message Changed with no Transition) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY - A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted (with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. c. Message Change Sequence. [Alternative 1: The change of messages. must be accomplished immediately.] [Alternative 2: A minimum of 0.3 seconds of time with no message displayed shall be provided between each message displayed on the sign.] 33- 13 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 2-Static Display (Fade/Dissolve Transitions) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY - A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME - a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT - a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. TRANSITION - a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, changed only through dissolve or fade transitions, or with the use of other subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images, but which may otherwise not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement,. of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 34 - 14 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 3-Static Display (Travel/Scroll Transitions and Animations) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY - A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME - a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT - a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. SCROLL - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move vertically across the display surface. TRANSITION - a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. TRAVEL - a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move horizontally across the display surface. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall be limited to static displays, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change _. _. in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 35- IS Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 4-Video/Animation Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY - A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures. or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means, including animated graphics and video. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted (with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] 36- 16 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 PUD PERMIT, COMPRE- HENSIVE SIGN PLAN, ARCHITEC- TURAL REVIEW - 2768 RICE STREET - AE SIGN SYSTEMS Road B, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner, and subject to an expiration date of December 31, 2007. Motion seconded by Socha. Motion carried 5 - 0. Steve Wethern, AE Sign Systems, appeared before the Commission requesting approval of a PUD Permit to allow a sign fabricating/ manufacturing company at 2768 Rice Street, as well as a Comprehen- siveSign Plan, and Architectural Review. Wethern reported that AE Sign Systems is a small sign company that engraves trophies, plaques, and name tags. The company also puts Braille into signs. While they sell large signs, those signs are ordered from other manufacturers and resold to clients. Wethern reported that he has operated this sign company from his home in Maplewood for the past 18 years with no problems. Knudsen asked how much traffic the business generates. Wethern replied that he is not sure since he operated as a wholesaler in the past and is just now getting into retail sales. As a wholesaler, Wethern reported that he had 4 or 5 cars to his house each day. Wethern indicated that moving to Rice Street opens up his business to retail traffic. Duray asked Wethern's plans for upgrading the exterior of the building. Wethern reported that he has discussed painting the exterior of the building with its owner. He noted his plans for adding signage to the exterior, and pointed out that his comprehensive sign plan falls under the City's square footage maximums for signage. The Commission noted the City Planner's comments relative to the electronic message board proposed for the pylon sign. It was noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit flashing signs, or signs that appear to move. The Planner also noted that the Architectural Guidelines for this district also state that electronic illumination must be provided only by a steady light, without flashing or blinking. While an electronic message board may be approved, the message could only be changed once per day, similar to the practice with hand-changeable message boards. Knudsen asked what AE Signs would play to do with the electronic message board. Wethern reported that they would use it to advertise the many different products they sell. -~- -37- lYIINUTES PLANNING CONiN1ISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 Knudsen noted that the City is not interested in having every business on Rice Street with a flashing electronic message board. He noted that there is currently one Rice Street business that has a flashing sign in its window. Wethern felt that other businesses on Rice Street would not have a lot of use for an electronic sign, especially given the cost of the sign. Knudsen pointed out that once the City allows one sign such as this, it will have additional requests. Doug Nielson, AE Signs, appeared before the Comrission and reviewed some newsletter articles relative to electronic message boards some of which referred to restricting the right of commercial speech. He indicated that electronic message boards are more aesthetically pleasing than the manual message boards as well as easier to change messages. Nielson did not feel there would be a precedence issue as he felt the cost of this type of sign would control the number of requests. Knudsen felt the issues were primarily aesthetics and secondly traffic safety. Knudsen stated that the issue is what does the City want it commercial districts to look like in the future. Wethern asked if the Commission felt a sign with an electronic reader board looked worse than a letter reader board. Knudsen felt that the electronic reader board looked better, but was concerned about an electronic reader board that had message that flashed, scrolled, and jumped up and down. Knudsen pointed out that the City has worked hard to upgrade Rice Street. Knudsen agreed with the Planner's recommendation that if electronic reader boards are allowed, the City must safeguard that Rice Street does not become a circus. Knudsen asked if the Commission was inclined to recommend in favor of electronic reader boazds, what restrictions would it place on these signs. Wethern again stated that he did not believe the City would be faced with many requests for this type of sign given the costs. Socha asked why the AE Sign Systems wants the electronic reader board. Wethern replied that the want the board to advertise their many products as well as to advertise that they sell electronic reader board. Knudsen stated that he understood why AE Sign Systems wants the electronic reader board, and indicated that the City wants the business to be successful. However, it cannot create afree-for-all when it comes to signs. ~ -38- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 Wethern felt the electronic sign looks a lot better than the hand-changed reader board. Wethern felt that this type of sign will indicate that the area is up and coming and there aze things going on on Rice Street. Duray asked if electronic signs are currently disallowed by ordinance. The Planner indicated that electronic signs are allowed if they are not flashing, scrolling, or blinking the message. The Planner indicated that the sign would be allowed if the message were not changed more than once per day. The Planner agreed that hand-changeable reader board are not very attractive and are labor intensive. Knudsen agreed that the sign, if correctly applied, would have a higher end feel to it. Knudsen indicated, however, that the City does not want to be in the business of having to monitor for movement on these types of signs. The City Planner indicated that his office has dealt with this issue in a lot of communities in trying to put parameters on the use of electronic message boards. He indicated that despite the amount of regulation the City tries to develop, the result has been code enforcement problems. Knudsen suggested that it would be productive to look at what the surrounding cities aze doing. The Planner suggested that the Commission think about what it wants Rice Street to look like and then set a standard. Wethern indicated that they do not want to do animation, and could live with short messages that would be allowed to scroll. He felt the sign would be no different than a time and temperature sign that flashes on and off. Knudsen asked if the sign would be backlit. The Planner replied that it would be. However, backlit signs are allowed as long as the colors are reversed out as this one is proposed to.be. Duray asked if the electronic reader board would require a variance. The City Planner indicated that under the current code an electronic reader board with asingle-message would be allowed as long as the message did change more than once per day or blink or scroll. If the City were to allow more than that, an ordinance amendment would have to be drafted. Bazraclough suggesred that the matter be tabled and staff find out what surrounding communities are allowing. -~- -39- iVIINUTES PLANNING COMiVIISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 Knudsen agreed and indicated that his feeling was that an electronic reader board was an upgrade from the hand-changed message board and had a more professional appearance. However, he did not. want to open the issue up too far. Knudsen again pointed out that there is currently a scrolling sign in a window at one of the Rice Street businesses. Wethern indicated that they are acommunity-oriented businesses and would advertise community events on their electronic message board. Wethern asked if they could have an extension on their banner while this issue is under further study. Knudsen indicated that Wethern would have to take that issue up with City staff. The Commission felt that other than the electronic reader board, the rest of the application was acceptable. Duray suggested the need for additional handicapped parking. The Planner indicated that the Building Official would look at that issue. Knudsen recommended approval of the PUD Permit to allow a sign fabricating/manufacturing company, approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan as submitted except for the pylon sign with electronic reader board which is tabled until the October Planning Commission meeting, and approval of Architectural Review for AE Sign Systems at 2768 Rice Street subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner and instructing the Code Enforcement Officer to survey the surrounding cities to determine how they handle the issue of electronic reader boards. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 5 - 0. CUP & Richard Reeves, Maaco Auto Painting, appeared before the Commission ARCHITECTURALrequesting aConditional Use Permit to allow accessory retail sales of REVIEW - used vehicles (indoor) as well as Architectural Review for facade 3245 COUNTRY improvements he is planning for the front of his building. Reeves DRIVE - described the proposed fapade improvements which include the MAACO AUTO installation of EIFS panels on the front of the building to hide roof-top PAINTING mechanicals and update the look of the building as well as install new windows and paint the building. The City Planner indicated that EIFS panels are acceptable under the City's architectural guidelines. He noted, however, that this property is zoned I-P District, therefore, is not subject to architectural review. The Planner indicated that the property owner needs only to apply for a building permit for the planned exterior improvements. ~ ~40- MAYOR Bill Blesener ~ COUNCIL Jim LaValle ~~ ~ ~ D ~ •,f,F~ ~LZ; e Rick Montour (}~/~ G ~ Bazbaza Allan John Keis 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 ADMINISTRATOR (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 Joel R. Hanson www. ci.little-Canada. mn. u s CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PROPOSAL: The City of Little Canada is proposing the Rezoning of the Gervais Mill Park property from Single- Family Residential (R-1) to Public (P). PROPERTY LOCATION: Gervais Mill Park OS-29-22-31-0048 OS-29-22-34-0055 OS-29-22-34-0056 OS-29-22-34-0036 Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 13, 2005 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties maybe heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 2005. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons aze available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator 41- ~m ~ I Ir arnr, 1 ~ I l',1 I N a ~~ '`l`~ , z I i IH W ' B I I _1 .. oA~~`n ^ ~ ~8 ~ n 6 Ipp Y~ ~ - FrrO) ....C ~.~ yCI I . W _ .. ... ... _ ._ .. [ (n 2 i ' flm .. .. .. F.iie.. .. .. .. ... .. W '1, ... fi~ br'I~ -1 n W L .. ~ \ :DE SDTO ~ e?, F W YF i- __ -. G ~ ~ ~ ~, n,~ ~ / `10° m ,a ,r i 9 n. n•._ ~sor ,~+• I B ~ ~ ~~ e~,t i~ I N" ~~I~. ~ .„ 'P~ 3x (~ 1~~J em eb n~~slo-1 aY - a~ 8m ac fR"J',W ~gr~ ~~ .~~', ~' ,e A " ~(il. Te.v~ 1'/, J WenN ~ I}J v m ~ J? I v .~ }\! 1 ..A 16 .A 1~ F ~eu, w rw rro r Li~~ v ,a UI' arse, t2u ~ ~ 11 : (~1~ k' I i~~ w. ~., ~~r i NOEL H r- rrn B I H I v B .. ~t~ ~'(I ~'~a 66- prr ~e~ err ~ ~ I trrr rm -¢nn tm'- »m .. .vvr--I k i'-. 'h1~L m raev ~(~rFOFa, '~`~ ~ ~~; }) . J v J N _ ! U ~ ~ F }~ 1/ -L ~'_-b,.-, e,:iil*" j /~`~ 6~~+3d Oe o0 A m~~m s W8'_ ~iag - - 0.3 g~ I y v'Yo `~ ~i;m o B ~- lT hw ~wb. C~ I vm ,fffy~~~~ i `H ~ ~ ~w d~ ~h, v.-1, I i ~ e~ g; I 1 Ba I.1 § _ B Y 8W ~'~8 g` r~ @ ~a9 r»gJ o ~ L I e 1 (; tr T - 1 ~oxm w H a~'w ..jaFU~j e ~ c ~ T~ 6 r r `q ®m ~y 6 c I e SCl~EZTY DRIVE ,~ "HO ~ k' ~'~qy~ LA", € e i ~ 5 a I ,,-c-N,rsao ~omrlt~s¢ ~ .e S ~~ ', as am, 4F. `h',: ~{ I "5 F~P~ I tt ~a a ~u16x F ~gt}~~- B~,~J~ ~~ • a , I _ p I ~ 1,•~5 ~ ~w i .. ei xi ~ a 1 ._ OI i I p iJ-$ o a A . C ~ EDGPJ2TGN _.. .... a q = ,~ 1- __ - . _- J ^C s & w Jam 1 1 wp ~ r ~r. v j y N ~iJT }Jn 46 k `l~ 8 ~ y ~o ~ NFU^] l.J. 7J ^~e ,,,i ~ ~ !6. "~,xoo= G c ~ ~ !)o e ° ~ ~ J `' J'~ .J ~~ ~V TT I ~ - '~ . 6 p ~LrCrA J ~~ J arc ~' rc ~ t `JS v H w ~ ~ oQ ~ lA€ ~ .nQ `~ ~ ' y ~ B l r ~ 1 i~/y(J i ~ C>, I ' r I ip i t r j' ' t F » w P Sw ' v ,.~ ~ ~ fl ' SI.~ Ew H ?J~ o,» k I e .,_ . L r ..~ -.... ~ ~£ "+~ 8 @~'.p I , rx i~ a HN s 9 @A r; I u ~ Bap n ~t~~ ~Crc ~'6. k I i a-' _ r`-_s emu.. I 'y cri 6p •4 `Vt wJ C,W g i q~ I ~ y~4~E75'186"1 ,¢. ~"~-`~y~' 7 I 5 C_l H 0 i m, k '' $ n6 I xa --T~ I j ~ ~j C" I I "c - c ii ~w .9 ~ I Y A "h W ~o-~ ]t +u. eo O b ®O '& Gm 6~ ~~ ~Q ~ ph ~.i ~ k ~"" e "" / 6b ¢ ai pq I tin .. t` ~ °'r` 6a` y'°+o-. INy, Y ,11t e,o- ° rr I'F``. s I <4 A v s ~V~, s'¢ 'e ~'~ ~fi. r Ola F` ~~6~ r ° SURVEY UN~ ~ a '`qtr. I E N ~t„^" -s - y J '"~ I "a ~~, P ) I .e 1 ~ t,~0. / C 6~ I @ ~ v ~(... o S I I ~ I a> •....iti. ,i I ,~ %i J /',~7~m. I I .. - I @ i i ... E Q ., e (AI Al - y N ~:\ ______ __.___._.. -------------- -42- I ~'ni I ' I 9f N ~~~ MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Jim LaValle Rick Montour Bazbara Allan John ISeis 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 551 17-1 600 ADMINISTRATOR (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 Joel R. Hanson wc~w. ci.little-canada.mn. us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PROPOSAL: The City of Little Canada is proposing the Rezoning of the Nadeau Park property from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Public (P). PROPERTY LOCATION: Nadeau Park 07-29-22-12-0049 07-29-22-12-0050 07-29-22-12-0043 Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMIISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 13, 2005 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at S1S Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 2005. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator 43- _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~q GI Ui` 1~~"~~xl z)r5 lara ~y _L_. % n~' ~ ((II ti - I v tl `~P('4 Q iLN' ~ F K .101 L~1~ '~ ~LJ 1 Yi`. a;11) G` _ ~rI - r \\ I d) ~~xl L_ d-SPRUBE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,~ yu,-_ - ~~ -8_ ~ -6 ~~, m '' ` n,; c,_ a __uos_.,, l:o.roq. mm np: ?a._ _ .. .__._._..._ , r IYLYAN____________________ST, __ _. m .aC l n t @~ ~ o~ ., ~ _ ~ Il a N / ',.~ yI ~ S~.cvr,n nr T Z v i m e Z' iY ~ 0o a L.I ~ N -~ .I O n ~ C N o b C• - H C $ Y b 8 B ~ M ~ a _ a ~g o; e : r f ' % ~ 6bP,m-G ' - _Lm?. i, ]t l 1 )' ]bill]'? 1 _ P.Zf' P U'q ;~ d RUTH ST. @ ~ F i> _ n~k o J ~. ~ nn ~ NI ~ 1 __ c ~ ~ ~ ~i W u ~ ~ J~QOI°'~'" 'saws -- ~ _ - I ~" 6 1~Y~ _..el ~ me ...... ....... ~ a '- », -~ W' 1~ - __- )I)t~41>,r--~ (,pia' ~ f`J' J °„ ~ ao ~,~~ aw tlt ~ ~.7 e, qn N @ I ~ u PLgl~)O RD7~ " ~, ~ 8~~61 ~ ~~ "~ ~~° o e Iv~7 O ~~' -~:. x .a l s ~v ~ x.°.na. a ....~ ~ w .,S I g I h 's ~,4,~ N r .,` . 6 1 `w6 1rrc O~ $ .d i ~ ~ ~.Cu ~Id 418 ti68a uy ~ h^I~ aM~ I6 €Q I" _ ~ : C s ` I .... m ~~ v ~~~I 1 ~ ~ >t/ ~v" ~416 Nm ~~ ~'d 1 ~~ I }^t' ~d ~'~¢1 6~ na' 0 5 "1 8 ffI7~ ~ _ ~'. I _,... 4 ,b I@ al,. c% I I a 1.~)= y v ~B 1~^h.6 +Y' ~ o U`,fn ~;. B t d ~ k e .i w ~ ~ 5 Old- ~!V' '~ ~ ~ »` 1~ f~q ", o- Q I I rv ~ ~''~ BLAKE SHO~~ AVE.6 ~~n~ ,@ 'xior „ ~. ~.. ~ Bl I T,^r~8 o-", a I i~ \[ n e a ~ ~ ~ 18 Y' C S~ ~~~'~ u .~ ° ~ 5 X7.3 •w tl rrr,,~,, ~~' 1 '~g~ s Y ~ ;e a „e ~ V 'l) ,.,[ 51 s E7~ ~ ~ ~o )e S > ~ Van r~ 8v Op o-$`~n N }`r ~e n~ y ,1~.1J 6e-" ~ .. "~~ ®~ viol ` ~ _..__.. _.. .. ~ d"~.9 F, i$66~ r; =W~;~ _ N, , I I yM ~9 LL4 41" 9 3t ~ +•6u S I I I Iti: a 1~ € 4 ti i q` p w° ~ //y` ~ s 2' ~ I ~. -® P e 6 yY ___ ~`g_y ,vvl mu YI ,Oa .,.. __ a "'^^^.tMM' .. ~ G 6u ~ l B GL -- 1~i3). ~ •' • ~/ ~~ ~9E' ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ n .,I" ,~ € i ~ ~ ~ ~~. 6 I' 44 " ~i ,,.,,' ,, ix ~ i I _ 8 , v d NIINUTES Parks & Recreation Commission September 1, 2005 REZONE The Director stated that the property where Nadeau Wildlife and Gervais Mill Parks are PARK located was never rezoned from single family residential to public. This item was just PROPERTIES discovered and must have been accidentally overlooked years ago. The zoning of all of our other parks was checked and is appropriate. ~~' Broten recommended changing the zoning of Nadeau Wildlife Park and Gervais Mill Park from single family residential to public. Motion seconded by Mans. Motion carried 6- 0. DIRECTOR'S The Director reported on the following items: REPORT Another community survey will be conducted. A workshop session has been scheduled on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 6 p.m. to discuss this matter. The Director handed out excerpts from the last two surveys conducted so the Commission could get a feel for what type of questions were asked. He felt that members of the Commission should be present to give input on parks and recreation. If some cannot attend, he encouraged them to get their input to Sackett Glaser. ADJOURN Mans recommended that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by Boss. Motion carried 6- 0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kris Pechman Page 2 of 2 -45