Laserfiche WebLink
R <br />I <br />2. What is the church saying that this sign is going to provide that the current signage <br />doesn't? With such a high traffic volume for a residential area at the corner of Red Oak <br />and Arden, the current sign is big enough and visible enough. I can understand they <br />might want to advertise various events but that is not enough to warranty the dynamic <br />sign. Many churches don't have it and post their happenings on the website. That, in my <br />opinion, is the way people tend to find out about a church nowadays. Not from a sign. A <br />dynamic sign provides no additional benefit to the betterment of human living (those in <br />need for example). It does provide a huge detriment to my family and those around us <br />with the bright lights. <br />Digital signage has proven to be a very effective tool for churches to <br />communicate with their members and the surrounding community. All our <br />church clients report increased awareness in the community and engagement of <br />direct church services and outreach ministries. Communicating their outreach <br />ministries to the community is a difficult problem for many churches. Many of <br />the services are needed but people don't know the services are available. A <br />digital sign is often the most effective communication tool a church has. <br />3. I can see this being a definite detractor in people seeking out buying a house adjacent <br />to the church when any homes go up for sale in this area. Maybe even a factor in <br />housing market pricing. Who wants to live next to a sign that is always bright and <br />constantly changing outside of living in the metropolis? I'd guess not very many. <br />We have installed over 70 digital signs at churches in Minnesota. We have only <br />had a couple instances where the light generated by the sign bothered a <br />neighbor. It was always a house that directly faced the sign — not a house <br />situated perpendicular to the face of the sign. In all instances we were able to <br />effectively mitigate the light issues by adjusting the default brightness levels of <br />the sign down. <br />The church understands the sign meets city code and will abide by the city code <br />for operating a digital sign: <br />• Dynamic Signs cannot flash, blink, or resemble traffic signs or create a <br />traffic hazard. <br />■ The sign must include an ambient light monitor able to adjust the <br />brightness between daytime and nighttime. <br />• The sign shall display its message for a minimum of 8 seconds. <br />• The sign shall only advertise information and activates that are located on <br />the premises (e.g. cannot advertise community events not held on the <br />property). <br />4. I'd be willing to hedge my bets that few, if any, behind this proposal even considered <br />in their own mind "what if I was living there? Would I be happy about that"? Do any of <br />the congregation members live within eyesight of the church like my family and others <br />do? <br />The church asked about potential issues for neighbors. We told the story of our <br />existing 70+ church clients and the problem free installs and impact on the <br />surrounding communities. The sign has the internal software controls to lower <br />default light levels if it becomes necessary. The sign is installed with an ambient <br />light meter to lower the sign's brightness when it is overcast and at night. <br />We looked at direct sight lines and viewing distances and believe the sign will <br />not cause a light problem for neighbors. <br />4 <br />