Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 26, 2005 <br />recommendation for equal rotation between time, temp, and message was <br />too restrictive. <br />Blesener stated Yhat he did not feel that time and temperature messages <br />needed to be required; however, felt that the three second message <br />changes was not reasonable. Blesener felt that changing the message that <br />quickly would be too distracting to drivers and was a safety issue. <br />Wethern stated that the three second timeframe was an indush•y standard. <br />Keis agreed that there was no good reason to require the time and <br />temperature display as well as with Blesener's position thaC the three <br />second timefixme was too quick. Keis felt this would break the <br />concentration of drivers along Rice Street. <br />Wethern reported that there have been studies done and there has never <br />been an accident reported that resulted from an electronic reader board. <br />LaValle pointed out the results of staff's survey of the surrounding <br />communities, and based on that information felt no changes should be <br />made to the City's ordinance. <br />Wethern reported that the survey results are not entirely factual and did <br />noC take into account that some of the cities do allow electronic reader <br />boards with changing messages under special circumstances. He pointed <br />out the sign in Maplewood along 35E as an example. Wethern also noted <br />that Vadnais Heights also allows these signs. <br />Blesener noted that the current code allows electronic reader boards with a <br />message that can change once every 24 hours. Blesener stated that it was <br />his opinion that changing the message every 3 seconds was unreasonable. <br />LaValle felt that allowing the message to change more than once every 24 <br />hours would become a code enforcement issue. <br />The City Planner agreed that electronic reader boards can be more <br />attractive than the hand-changed message boards. He noted that from his <br />experience allowing an electronic reader board with a message that <br />changes more than once per day is a code enforcement issue. <br />Keis expressed concern from an equity standpoint with the <br />recommendation fora 1,000 foot separation between signs. The Planner <br />noted thaC the current ordinance does not have a separation requirement, <br />that was a recommendation of the Planning Commission. <br />Wethern indicated that if the concern is with enforcement, there should be <br />consequences in the Code for code violations. <br />