Loading...
2007-03-13 PC Agenda Packet PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA 2. MINUTES February 13, 2007 Regular Meeting (pages 1-6) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Shoppes of Prairie Run 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (pages 7-14) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a. Freeway Sign Heights (pages 15-25) b. Electronic Billboard Discussion (pages 26-36) c. Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meeting March 26, 2007 5. ADJOURNMENT “A quorum of Council members may be present.” PLANNING and ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 2007 Albertville Council Chamber 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA PRESENT: Chair Sharon Leintz, Commission members Frank Kocon, and Denise Prow, Council liaison Dan Wagner, Assistant City Planner Cassie Schumacher-Georgopoulos, Zoning Administrator/Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary/City Clerk Bridget Miller ABSENT: Commission member Scott Dorenbush and City Planner Al Brixius Chair Leintz called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of the City of Albertville to order at 7:00 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA MOTION BY Commission member Kocon, seconded by Commission member Prow to approve the agenda as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES MOTION BY Commission member Kocon, seconded by Commission member Prow to approve the January 9, 2007 regular Planning and Zoning Commission minutes as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION BY Commission member Prow, seconded by Commission member Kocon to approve the January 22, 2007 joint City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop minutes as amended correcting the heading of a joint Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Workshop and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously. INTERVIEWING OF CANDIDATES Chair Leintz opened the interviewing of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Leintz mentioned that the individual that is recommended for appointment will be required to complete a “Background Check Release Form”, which has been added to the process. Chair Leintz asked Dale Edgren to approach the podium and if the other applicant could step out of the Chamber during the interview. Chair Leintz questioned Mr. Edgren to introduce himself to the Commission and explain why he would like to serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgren explained that he is a business owner within the City of Albertville. He doesn’t have experience as a Commission member, but if appointed would bring a resident/business owner’s City of Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 2 of 6 view point to the Commission. He would bring a wide range of knowledge to the Planning Commission from the business aspect of development. In summary, he would like to “be part of the Community.” Chair Leintz thanked Mr. Edgren for his interest in wanting to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Leintz informed Edgren that the recommendation would most likely be going before the City Council at the March 5, 2007 Council meeting. Chair Leintz asked Edgren to step out into the hallway and have Kevin Knock come back into the Council Chamber. Chair Leintz asked Kevin Knock to approach the podium and explain why he would like to serve on the Planning Commission. Kevin Knock began by stating that he is a junior at St. Cloud State University and is majoring in Community Development with a minor in GIS. Knock would like to obtain a job as a City Planner. Knock is a current member of the Community Planning Association at St. Cloud State. Knock went on to explain that as a Community Development major being a member of the Commission would provide him with hands on experience that would be highly beneficial to his career. Knock informed the Commission that he is also on a three member committee to design a proposal for a Comprehensive Plan for Baldwin Township. Chair Leintz thanked Mr. Knock for his interest in wanting to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Leintz informed Knock that the recommendation would most likely be going before the City Council at the March 5, 2007 Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 7, SECTION 10-7-8 OF THE 2005 ALBERTVILLE MUNICIPAL CITY CODE DEALING WITH GROUND SIGNS - ILLUMINATION Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Assistant City Planner Schumacher-Georgopoulos informed the Commission members that the language for ground signs is coming back for review, because the current language in place for ground signs had been recently amended in March of 2006. Since the amendment, an application came in for review and the applicant claimed that the language was possibly a trademark infringement by requiring a dark background, which could potentially alter the appearance and or color of a company’s logo. Schumacher-Georgopoulos stated that, according to a memo from City Attorney Couri, there is no clear controlling law in the 8th Circuit Court, within the State of Minnesota, on whether a city’s ordinance requiring a business to modify it’s logo on an outdoor sign constitutes a violation of the Latham Act for trademark protection. City of Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 3 of 6 In summary, City Attorney Couri is recommending that the City change the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code, Chapter 7, Section 10-7-8 text in a manner that would not require a change in color of a company’s logo, but would achieve the same result of reducing the glare or illumination coming from the on-premises signs at night. Staff has prepared two alternatives for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider. Option 1 – Repeal Section 10-7-8 A.3 Subd. J of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code – Sign Ordinance and allow all light-background signs. Option 2 – to amend the text placing the following restrictions on light-background signs and have the language read as follows: Subd. j. Ground Signs: In business districts, grounds signs shall have a background which is dark in color in contrast to the sign lettering or message which is light in color to create a sufficient contrast and be clearly legible. No ground signs with lightly colored backgrounds shall be permitted unless the following conditions are met: 1. Hours of illumination are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., unless the business is open. 2. Illumination of the sign does not exceed 500 lumens per square foot of sign face. Certification from the sign manufacturer shall be provided stating that full illumination of the sign will not exceed 500 lumens per square foot at the sign face. 3. The sign height does not exceed thirty (30) feet. 4. The sign is located three hundred (300) feet from all residential property lines. Assistant City Planner Schumacher-Georgopoulos stated that staff is looking for direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as City Council, which option appears to be appropriate for the City. Commission members confirmed that the ground sign text is being amended because of the current application from Lake Community Bank. Commission members had concerns with the Lake Community Bank with the reader board portion of the sign. The reader board appears now to be brighter than the sign and the reader board is on past 11:00 p.m. The Commission brought to staff’s attention the fact that the sign was on after 11:00 p.m. Commission directed staff to research the signage that was approved for Lake Community Bank. The Commission did not recall that the reader board was included in the Signage approval. Chair Leintz asked if anyone was present regarding the public hearing for the Text Amendment to Chapter 7, Section 10-7-8 of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Dealing with Ground Signs - Illumination. City of Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 4 of 6 There was no one in the audience with concerns regarding the Text Amendment to Chapter 7, Section 10-7-8 of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Dealing with Ground Signs - Illumination. Dan Franklin of Franklin Outdoor Advertising commented that the speed of the signage may be the problem more than the brightness. Keith Franklin of Franklin Outdoor Advertising shared with the Commission the fact that technology has advanced over the years. Franklin agreed that the illumination of signage needs to be controlled. There is a need to regulate the amount of illumination and also the speed of the reader board messages. Chair Leintz closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. MOTION BY Commission member Prow, seconded by Commission member Kocon to approve Option 2 - Text Amendment to Chapter 7, Section 10-7-8 of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Dealing with Ground Signs – Illumination approval at the March 5, 2007 City Council meeting or soon thereafter. Motion carried unanimously. TEXT AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A, SECTION 1200.4.H. OF THE 2005 ALBERTVILLE MUNICIPAL CITY CODE DEALING WITH OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Assistant City Planner Schumacher-Georgopoulos reported that the City is considering text amendments to Off-Street Parking requirements section of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code. The purpose of the amendments would address the parking and storage of oversized commercial vehicles and off-street parking standards for angled parking, which the current Zoning Ordinance does not address. Schumacher-Georgopoulos informed the Commission that concerns and complaints have been received regarding the parking and storage of large (oversized) commercial trucks in parking lots that are designed for automobiles. Upon further review, it was realized by staff that the current Zoning Ordinance of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code does not contain language regarding off-street parking standards for angled parking, which angled parking was presented with the Lake Community Bank Site and Building Plan and the Starbucks Site and Building Plan. Schumacher-Georgopoulos continued stating that staff has drafted two separate ordinance amendment options for discussion. City of Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 5 of 6 Option 1. - adds standards for the parking and storage of oversized commercial vehicles and requires that commercial vehicle parking stalls not be located in the front or side yards abutting a street of commercial lots. Option 2. - adds the aforementioned standards, but also adds design standards for angled parking. Chair Leintz asked if there was anyone present regarding the Text Amendment to Appendix A, Section 1200.4.h. of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Dealing with Off-Street Parking Regulations. There was no one in the audience with concerns regarding the Text Amendment to Appendix A, Section 1200.4.h. of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Dealing with Off-Street Parking Regulations. Chair Leintz closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. MOTION BY Commission member Kocon, seconded by Commission member Prow to approve Option 2 - Text Amendment to Appendix A, Section 1200.4.h. of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Dealing with Off-Street Parking Regulations contingent on City Council approval at the March 5, 2007 City Council meeting or soon thereafter. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS TEXT AMENDMENT TO POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD SIGNS Assistant City Planner Schumacher-Georgopoulos reminded the Commission members that this is for discussion and information only. No motions are necessary at this time. Staff is looking for direction to proceed with the text amendment or not. Schumacher-Georgopoulos informed the Commission that digital technology is changing the look of outdoor advertising. Outdoor electronic advertising signs are becoming more popular in the billboard advertising business. It is apparent that electronic signs are more sales-oriented when advertisers desire to have more immediate contact with customers. Electronic signs allow business owners the opportunity to change the message quickly. This allows the businesses to get the attention of the general public so the shoppers can take advantage of a special discount at a nearby store. Commission members inquired what the sizes of the billboards are within Albertville city limits. Mr. Franklin reported that the billboards vary anywhere from 325 square-feet up to 750 square- feet. City of Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Franklin added that the state does not allow video billboards signage. The signage that is seen by the public is on-premise signage, which the state does not regulate. Zoning Administrator Sutherland shared with the Commission members the fact that Franklin Outdoor Advertising has an electronic billboard within the Albertville city limits. It is a three panel system where the entire billboard advertisement changes every so many minutes. Mr. Franklin confirmed that Franklin Outdoor Advertising has a couple of electronic billboards along the I-94 corridor where the message on the billboard changes every so many minutes. These billboards or signs are not as distracting as the LED message flashing billboards similar to the Hummer dealership located within Rogers city limits. The Commission directed staff to conduct research on the State’s regulations, other history or such, and to check with other communities on how they are regulating or monitoring the electronic billboards or signage. Staff was directed to research the interior LED message signage, as well. The information that is obtained by the staff will be brought before the Commission for further discussion at the March 13, 2007 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission also wanted to address the on-premise electronic signage in conjunction with the electronic billboard signage. TEXT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SIGN HEIGHTS Assistant City Planner Schumacher-Georgopoulos brought to the Commission’s attention the possibility of amending the text pertaining to the height of pylon signs in a commercial zoned district along Interstate 94. Schumacher-Georgopoulos reported that staff has researched the allowable Interstate 94 signage height in the cities of Maple Grove, Rogers, Otsego, and Monticello. It was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a lengthy discussion, to continue the Freeway Pylon Signage Height issue at the March 13, 2007 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY Commission member Prow, seconded by Commission member Kocon to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. _______________________________________ Sharon Leintz, Chair _______________________________________ Bridget Miller, City Clerk/Secretary 7 PLANNING REPORT TO: Larry Kruse, City Administrator FROM: Cassie Schumacher-Georgopoulos / Alan Brixius DATE: March 7, 2007 RE: Albertville – Shoppes of Prairie Run 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat and Final Plat NAC FILE: 163.06 – 07.06 RECEIVED DATE: February 16, 2007 60 DAY DATE: April 17, 2007 BACKGROUND Finken Water Inc. has submitted a preliminary and final plat application to divide Lot 1 Block 1 of Shoppes of Prairie Run into two lots and rename the plat Shoppes of Prairie Run 2nd Addition. The subdivision will divide the current Lot 1 Block into Lot 1 which will be 61,490 square feet (1.41 acres) and Lot 2 which will be 60,765 square feet (1.39 acres). The current Lot 2 from the initial plat will be renamed to Lot 3 Block 1 of Shoppes of Prairie Run 2nd Addition. The current plat was approved in October 2004 along with a commercial PUD to allow two principal buildings on Lot 1 Block 1. The new application will have all three buildings on separate lots. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A Preliminary Plat Exhibit B Final Plat Exhibit C Grading and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit D Utility Plan Exhibit E Detail Sheet 8 ISSUES ANALYSIS Preliminary Plat Zoning. The site is in the B-2, Limited Business District with a commercial PUD overlay. The following tables illustrate the compositions of the three lots compared to the standards of the B-2 District: Lot 1 Block 1 Standards Required Standards Proposed Lot Area 10,000 square feet 61,490 square feet Front yard Setback (west) 35 feet 35 feet Side yard Setback (north) 10 feet 143 feet Side yard Setback (south) 10 feet 18 feet Rear yard Setback (east) 35 feet 75 feet Lot 2 Block 1 Standards Required Standards Proposed Lot Area 10,000 square feet 60,765 square feet Front yard Setback (west) 35 feet 35 feet Side yard Setback (north) 10 feet 17 feet Side yard Setback (south) 10 feet 130 feet Rear yard Setback (east) 35 feet 75 feet Lot 3 Block 1 Standards Required Standards Proposed Lot Area 10,000 square feet 29,920 square feet Front yard Setback (west) 35 feet 35 feet Side yard Setback (north) 10 feet 20 feet Side yard Setback (south) 10 feet 36 feet Rear yard Setback (east) 35 feet 75 feet As illustrated by the tables, all lot standards have been met by the layouts of the buildings. The building on Lot 2 has already been construct and has met the requirements of the district. Access and Circulation. The access to the site and circulation within the site will not change due to the lot split; therefore, no changes to the lot configuration will be needed. However, ingress and egress easements shall be shared between Lot 1 and Lot 2, and shall be shown on the preliminary plat. Parking Requirements. The revised plans for the plat show that the site contains 152 stalls which are compliant with the number of stalls approved on plans dated October 04, 2004. 9 Landscaping. The landscaping of the site shall be compliant with the landscape plan approved on plans dated October 04, 2004. All dead or unhealthy landscaping existing on site of Lot 2 shall be replaced at the cost of the developer. Grading and Drainage. The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control plan for the site which is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Final Plat Easements. The lots split will still allow for circulation of cars between Lot 1 and Lot 2; therefore, and ingress and egress easement shall be dedicated between Lot 1 and Lot 2 like it has been done between Lot 2 and Lot 3. Park Dedication. Park dedication should have been satisfied with the final plat of Shoppes of Prairie Run. RECOMMENDATION Based on the review of the submitted plans and past documents, our office recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats for Shoppes of Prairie Run 2nd Addition with the following conditions: 1. Ingress and egress easements shall be established across Lots 1 and Lots 2 within the subdivision and so noted on the Preliminary and Final Plats. 2. All existing dead or unhealthy landscaping shall be replaced by the developer. 3. The grading and erosion control plan and the utility plan are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. Comments of other City Staff. Pc Mike Couri Bridget Miller Adam Nafstad Jon Sutherland (Owner) Finken Water Inc., 3423 County Road 74, St. Cloud, MN 56301 (Developer) Granite City Real Estate LLC, 58 10th Ave So, Waite Pk, MN 56387 -mgOll-D. 'iI* --*I-. Y-*I- 0 2CE 2i8lTad m-cu (ox) 1- m 'MW 3JmA la Nu .OID+J s UU01;om*YIS m(awAw IPIEC*Pn*YOYI -. - -. 0131s1l5 a 1oilno -->I- nn# 3tu!vxd . - . , - . , - . . - . . - . - . - . - -0,"'Tz-a- rnlnunsn mln '~s - 'w lacusla iwx dWY MIN131A smpna ounn r-a :moz wla QlOS3NNIW "MNfl03 lH3ltlM '3llINtl38lQ JO All3 Z Nntr' 3/8/V&d I V S3ddOHS JO l b7d X8VN/M//73dd 15 MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Kruse, City Administrator FROM: Cassie Schumacher-Georgopoulos / Alan Brixius DATE: March 7, 2007 RE: Albertville – Freeway Sign Heights NAC FILE: 163.05 – 07.03 BACKGROUND Through discussion of the City Planner the issue has risen about controlling the height of commercial signs on lots with freeway frontage. Currently there are a minimum number of signs which have taken advantage of the allowed extended height along the freeway. There are only a few taller signs primarily because the commercial frontage of the freeway has been limited to a small area of the community. However, with current discussions of land use changes, more land along the I-94 corridor may be opened to commercial use. The expansion of the commercial use will allow for more 75 foot signs to be constructed with the City of Albertville along its main traffic corridor. Primarily three signs have been the focus of concerns for signs allowed at the extended height. Two of the current signs are 75 feet, while the third is 71 feet tall (Exhibit B). While these signs are allowed by the Ordinance, the taller sign were negotiated through a PUD. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A NAC Report Dated February 8, 2006: Albertville – Freeway Sign Height Research Exhibit B Sign Permit and Sign Graphics for Albertville Plaza Exhibit C City of Albertville Zoning Map 16 ISSUES ANALYSIS The following table is a brief presentation of the information presented at the February 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The table illustrates how Albertville compares with city’s sign height along the I-94 corridor from Maple Grove to Monticello. Table: City Sign Heights along the I-94 Corridor City Allowed Height (Maximum) District Albertville 75 feet 30 feet Freeway Oriented Uses within 100 feet of I-94 Billboards or Advertising Devices Maple Grove 6 feet to 15 feet or as determined by the City Council Freeway Frontage District Rogers – recently amended 30 feet or as approved through a Site Plan Review Regional Business Sign Overlay District St Michael 30 feet Shopping Centers Otsego 50 feet Freeway Corridor Sign District Monticello 32 feet 50 feet Freeway Bonus District Shopping Centers greater than 150,000 square feet Many of the communities illustrated in this table face the same concern as Albertville for site lines to signs close to the over passes. However, Albertville has the tallest allowance for freeways signs, which is 45 feet taller than the maximum allowed in the rest of the community. Monticello’s Freeway Bonus District is in place for signs along “freeways and express” and limits all pylon sign heights to 32 feet unless they are for a shopping center greater than 150,000 square feet. Albertville’s requirement for the advertising devises limits the height of the signs to be no more than 30 feet from the ground. To be consistent with other communities and to reduce the visual impact of the tall signs on residential neighborhoods and the community as a whole, Albertville should look into reducing its maximum sign height for signs along the freeway. While it may not be perceived to be a major problem at the moment; further expansion of the commercial areas will only open the possibility of having more of these signs in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS Our office recommends looking at the following two options: Option 1 – Reduce the freeway sign heights to specified maximum between 30 to 50 feet. Option 2 – Repeal Section 10-7-8.A.3.i from the Ordinance and require all signs within the City to be no more than 30 feet tall. This language reads as follows: 17 i. In lieu of a ground sign, one pylon sign shall be permitted on any lot in a commercial district or on any lot used for a gasoline service station in a commercial district, subject to the regulations in subsections A.3.b through A.3.h of this section, inclusive. Notwithstanding any height restrictions in this chapter or any other ordinance of the city, the maximum structure height (in feet) of any such pylon sign for service station or freeway oriented business uses within a strip of land one hundred feet (100') in width immediately adjacent to and along Interstate Highway 94 (excluding any intervening street or railroad right-of-way) shall be as set in this subsection A.3.i and shall be seventy five feet (75'), but in no event shall any part of the sign be higher than one thousand thirty three feet (1,033') above sea level NGVD 1929. The benchmark is elevation 979.219 feet at bridge deck on East 94 at Highway 19. "Freeway oriented business uses" shall mean uses whose commercial or service activities in a substantial way (as determined by the city council) are motor vehicle oriented and customarily occur along interstate freeways, such as motor hotels, fast food establishments, full service gasoline service station restaurants, and uses similar. (Amended Ord. 1987-3, 10-19-1987; amd. by 2005 Code) We are seeking discussion on this topic as whether or not the City feels the need to change the allowed height or if the current language suffices the City’s vision for future development along the I-94 Corridor. Pc Mike Couri Bridget Miller Adam Nafstad Jon Sutherland MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Kruse, City Administrator FROM: Carie Fuhrman/Alan Brixius DATE: February 8, 2007 RE: Albertville – Freeway Sign Height Research NAC FILE: 163.05 – 07.03 Background This memo is regarding the Zoning Ordinance regulation (Section 10-7-8.A.3.i.) that allows pylon signs in a commercial district along Interstate 94 to be up to 75 feet in height. The following information was gathered from area communities which front along Interstate 94. It is intended to give a summary of their regulations regarding sign heights for freestanding signs along the freeway in comparison with the regulations of Albertville. The following information is being presented to you as information-only. Note: For those cities with multiple sign heights allowed along Interstate 94, the maximum height allowed was used in this analysis. Albertville The City of Albertville allows one pylon sign on any lot in a commercial district or on any lot used for a gasoline service station in a commercial district. The maximum structure height of any such pylon sign for a service station or a freeway oriented business (such as motor hotels, fast food establishments, full service gasoline service station restaurants, and uses similar) use within a strip of land 100 feet in width immediately adjacent to and along Interstate Highway 94 shall be 75 feet, but no part of a sign shall be higher than 1,033 feet above sea level. Maple Grove Although there is more than one zoning district that fronts Interstate 94 in Maple Grove, the Freeway Frontage District allows the tallest freestanding signs. The following standards apply in the FF, Freeway Frontage District: EXHIBIT A 18 19 Area Identification Signs One monument sign may be erected on each street frontage which bounds the development. Sign height shall not exceed 15 feet, and the sign area shall be no greater than 80 square feet. Occupant Identification Signs Single-occupancy buildings—Freestanding signs. Only one sign may be erected on each street frontage. The maximum sign area shall be 50 square feet per sign and maximum sign height shall be six feet. Multiple-Occupancy Buildings—Freestanding Signs. Only one sign for the entire building may be erected on each street frontage. The maximum area per sign shall be 50 square feet and the maximum sign height shall be six feet. However, the City of Maple Grove has a portion included in their Sign Ordinance that allows deviation from the customary standards, which only applies to FF or PUD developments: Sign Packages Sign packages allow a developer or subsequent owner of a project to submit a comprehensive sign package or amendment thereto for an entire FF or PUD development. Such sign package shall set down the standards guiding the installation of all signs within the development and is expected to result in a more integrated sign design for the development than could be required by this chapter. The city council must approve of the sign package by a four-fifths vote and may vary any of the requirements of this chapter in the sign package either by allowing more or larger signs, or by requiring fewer or smaller signs, or by any combination of the two. The city council may decline to approve the sign package, in which case this chapter would apply to signs within the development. Rogers The City of Rogers recently amended their Sign Ordinance and implemented stricter regulations. The City allows no more than one freestanding sign on any site. Multiple Districts front Interstate 94 in Rogers, but the Regional Business Sign Overlay District appears to allow the tallest freestanding signs. The maximum sign area of the sign face allowed is 100 square feet, while the maximum sign height is 30 feet in the RG, Regional Business Sign Overlay District. The City of Rogers does allow adjustments to the standards established for signs, including the height. The adjustments may be approved through a Site Plan Review process if the following criteria are met (Section 10): 1) There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site; or, 2) The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site; and, 20 3) The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located. Otsego The City of Otsego has identified a Freeway Corridor Sign District, in which commercial and industrial uses are allowed one freestanding sign up to 200 square feet and up to 50 feet in height. Monticello The City of Monticello allows one freeway standard sign in a commercial or industrial district up to 200 square feet in area and 32 feet in height. For shopping centers greater than 150,000 square feet of building square footage and greater than 20 acres in site area, which requires a conditional use permit, two freestanding signs may be permitted: two pylon-style signs or one pylon-style and one monument-style sign. The monument sign shall be no greater than 100 square feet in area and 18 feet in height, and the pylon may be no greater than 400 square feet in area and 50 feet in height. cc: Bridget Miller Jon Sutherland Mike Couri Adam Nafstad . .---.----..----.--a,..- .- ----.-.---- ... . . - -.-. -.-- ------...--.---------.. . nr\TE SALESMAN APPROVAL aw INYZ DATE~WB 02r~1-02 1~7sAbodeanstn* . . =. ma .. . . Hrrrnbka,~~= f7BS175S-0873 ' -. J2Ei??!wm. @ lQ5al .' ... *I. . -. .. , *. +*A NORTHWR'ST ASSOCIATE0 CONSULTANTS, INC. 5776 Wayzata Boulword. Suite 655, St. Louis Park. MN 56410 7 Telephone: 952,506.9838 Facsimile$ 882.595.9837 tmcBwimwmt.c~n PLANNING REPORT FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Albertville.Mayor and City Council Albertville Ranning Commission Cindy Sherman October 6,2000 Albertville - Sign Variance for Proposed Mobil Station BACKGROUND Mooney Development Corporation' has submitted an application for sign variance. The application is being made to allow the purchase of standard sized signs provided to them instead of customized signage. REQUEST The variances relate to the canopy sign and the proposed pylon sign. . Other signage ,propom on the site meets the ordinance regulations. The applicant has indicated that the'totat square footage of signage propdsed is 305.56 square feet and ' the ordinance would.alldw up to 437 square feet if all signage allowed were maximized. Sign Canopy Pylon ' VARJANCE CRITERIA The ordinance provides that Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this ordinance. the City Council .has the power to'vary.. .* based on the following conditions: Perrnrtted by Ordinance 1.2 inch tall letters - Total 80 square feet 125 square feet - 75 feet high Request by Variance ' . 21 inch letters- - . Total 34.5 square feet 142 square feet - 75 feet high 26 MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Kruse, City Administrator FROM: Cassie Schumacher-Georgopoulos / Alan Brixius DATE: March 8, 2007 RE: Albertville – Electronic Billboards NAC FILE: 163.05 – 07.05 The City Council requested for Northwest Associated Consultants to look into up dating the Albertville Sign Ordinance to accommodate Electronic Signage. Recently we have seen discussion of the topic in the news due to controversy these signs are causing in communities. The controversy most communities are looking into is whether or not these sign create a hazard for motorist by causing one more distraction. The City of Minnetonka has been most recently gotten press due to its battle with Clear Channel after the city cut power to two billboards. Minnetonka’s rational for turning off the power was based on the fact that Clear Channel did not inform the City that it was installing LED billboards, but that it was obtaining building and electrical permits to update the structures. Clear Channel sought preliminary injunction, arguing Minnetonka’s Ordinance does not prohibit LED signs, that Minnesota Statutes preempt the field, and the moratorium placed on LED signs was invalid. The court ruled in favor of the City of Minnetonka stating that the City’s Ordinance banning signs in which “illumination is not kept stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use” is considered valid over the State Statutes, and that moratorium is valid based on the fact that it will allow the LED billboards to be turned on an change advertisement every hour. Since the case, the Judge has allowed the billboards in Minnetonka to be turned back on and to only change messages once per hour with the billboards being turned off at night. Language from the court case points out that the “Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has concluded that electronic signs which change every six seconds or more pose no safety hazard to passing drivers.” “But this conclusion only addresses the matter of frequency, and does not take into account the issues of changing color, illumination, intensity, and distraction addressed by Minnetonka’s Ordinance.” “There is no evidence that MnDOT has an opinion about the color, illumination, and change combination of the two specific signs at issue in this case, or 27 the specific technology.” And more so, “federal research studies in the record which raises a concern that the eye-catching technology ‘may distract drivers from concentrating on the driving task and the visual surrounds’.” “At least two studies in the record have concluded that the addition of electronic billboards along major metropolitan freeways cased a greater number of auto accidents.” One such determination by the 8th Circuit Court, in the case of Advantage Media v. City of Eden Prairie, the court stated that “large outdoor billboards using ‘trivision’ electronic technology are ‘distracting’ and could also pose real danger to both motorist and nearby pedestrians’.” At the February 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting we also reviewed cases from Wisconsin and Texas where electronic signs with changing messages were the indirect cause of a crash or increased the occurrence of accidents. Also reviewed at the meeting was information from a study put together by the City of Bloomington stating that electronic signs would be distracting for drivers and were not appropriate for all areas of the City. The Planning Commission should discuss whether or not they would like to create regulations for these signs while not banning them completely from the City. Also at this time the City could take the opportunity to update the sign ordinance language for message boards or reader boards. A brief review of the City’s current Sign Ordinance draws attention to the following areas for change: Definitions: Here new definitions for electronic signs as well as updating current definitions would be needed. New definitions would include changeable copy sign, changeable electronic copy sign, electronic graphic display sign, multi- vision sign, shimmering sign, and video display sign (Exhibit C). Current definitions, such as illuminated signs, flashing signs, moving/rotating signs, and reader board signs would need to be updated. Permitting: Language requiring permits for all electronic or LED signs and reader/message boards should be included in the ordinance. Reader Boards: Updated language for reader boards in business district would be further outlined with maximum allowances and defined regulations. The current language in the ordinance could set some restrictions against the electronic signs, but it is not strong enough to provide full guidelines for the permitting of such signs. Updating the language for illuminated signs and other indistinct language would be helpful to the City of Albertville to keep boundaries on this new signage technology. Attached for reference: Exhibit A NAC February 8, 2006 Report: Electronic Billboard Signs Exhibit B Current Billboard Locations along I-94 in Albertville Exhibit C Example Ordinance Language (Lakeville, Minnesota) Pc: Bridget Miller, Jon Sutherland, Mike Couri, Adam Nafstad 28 MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Kruse, City Administrator FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Alan Brixius DATE: February 8, 2007 RE: Albertville – Electronic Billboard Signs NAC FILE: 163.05 – General Background Digital technology is changing the look of outdoor advertising. Outdoor electronic advertising signs are becoming more popular in the advertising business (Exhibit A). Advanced technology, particularly in respect to the light emitting diode (LED) video display signs, have allowed these advancing signs to more resemble big screen televisions than signs. These signs are capable of showing animated text and images, scrolling text messages, or even full motion video on large, bright screens that are visible from great distances at all times during the day and night. Multiple companies are able to advertise on the signs off-site and are able to change the advertisements throughout the day, offering competitive advantages over the print billboards. These types of signs are also utilized for business identification signs also. The following information is being presented to you as information-only. It is intended to give a summary of the current status of the issues involving electronic advertising signs. Differences between Print and Electronic Signs Print billboards are intended for branding and product awareness when advertisers desire to have more of a long term presence. Electronic signs are more sales-oriented when advertisers desire to have more immediate contact with customers. Electronic signs allow them to change the message quickly, in regard to sales specials or to alert the public to a nearby store where there are discounts or new products to take advantage of. Locating Electronic Signs Lamar Advertising is currently the biggest electronic billboard network in the United States, owning and operating over 150,000 billboards throughout most of the country. The company states that the conditions they look at for installing their signs are: location; vehicle demographics, such as how many cars pass by a site on an hourly basis; and municipal sign codes. EXHIBIT A 29 Growth of Electronic Signs In 2005, Daktronics, the largest LED sign manufacturer in the United States, saw an increase of up to 200% growth in the manufacturing of LED billboards from 2004. This market is still considered relatively new, and so it is expected that a large growth in numbers will continue to be seen for the next few years. The growth of electronic signs is being seen locally in Minnesota also. Minnesota now has at least a dozen new LED billboards. With the growing number of electronic billboards has come the growing attention from local municipalities and the media. The Minneapolis Star Tribune has recently published two articles regarding the issue just in the past week alone (January 19 and 23, 2007). Support of Electronic Signs Numerous companies are seeing the advantages that the electronic billboards offer. Some say that the LED billboards offer a fresh approach to advertising; they are easy to read and easy to see; and they do not require that a company lock into a single message for a long period of time. For example, fast-food restaurants can advertise breakfast in the morning and lunch or dinner specials later in the day. Therefore, offering economic advantages for these restaurants. Certain studies have shown that LED billboards are significantly more effective than traditional billboards, partly because they are animated, unlike their surrounding environment, and partly because people passing can recall them better than static billboards. The following Twin Cities’ businesses have bought advertising slots on electronic signs in the metropolitan area: McDonald’s, Edina Realty, TCF bank, Comcast.com, Walser. com, and Fox-9. Opposition to Electronic Signs One of the most cited reasons for resistance to electronic billboards is the possible safety threat that exists with their presence. The bright lights and ever-changing pictures could distract motorists and visually impair drivers. The City of Minnetonka is one example of a community that is not willing to risk that threat. Clear Channel is taking the City of Minnetonka to court after the City cut the power off to two electronic billboards that Clear Channel installed. The City is fearful that the electronic billboards will distract drivers and create even more dangerous driving conditions. Minnetonka and Maplewood have both claimed that Clear Channel “omitted key facts” and “was not forthcoming” in its permit applications for their electronic billboards (Exhibit B1 and B2). Another concern with electronic billboards is the effects on the aesthetics of an area when an electronic billboard is installed. An electronic billboard has the potential of instilling a "Times Square" or “Las Vegas” appearance on an area that could be extremely out of character, especially for residential areas or rural, low density areas. 30 Example Reports on Signs Affecting Safety 1. Variable Message Sign Affecting Traffic Safety An analysis was conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation on the crash rates before and after the installation of a variable message advertising sign located on Interstate 94 adjacent to the Milwaukee County Stadium. The sign displayed sporting scores and advertisements, which changed images an average of 12 frames per minute. The DOT concluded that the variable message sign did have an effect on traffic safety, displaying an increase in the rate of sideswipe crashes. It also concluded that the greater increase in crashes for the eastbound segment was due to the orientation of the sign towards eastbound traffic. 2. Electronic Sign Indirect Cause of Vehicle Crash A jury in a Texas court case found that an electronic sign was the indirect cause of a multiple vehicle crash at a Texas airport. A driver stopped to read an electronic sign that listed departure times, arrival times, and gate information when a second vehicle swerved around the stopped vehicle and side swiped a vehicle in the adjacent lane. The three-vehicle crash resulted in two drivers being injured and suing the airline. The jury returned a negligence verdict against the airline, and the airport subsequently removed the electronic billboard. Design and Placement Affecting Driver Distraction Driver workload, or the number of tasks that a driver must perform simultaneously, contributes significantly to the possibility of a sign posing a distraction to a driver. According to a report conducted by the City of Bloomington, numerous studies have identified the following sign characteristics as contributing most directly to posing possible dangerous distraction for drivers: 1. Sign Conspicuity Signs should not be so conspicuous and attract special attention that they distract the driver from roadway information. Signs that contain movement or extreme brightness should not be allowed in areas of the road where a driver is exposed to a high workload. This also pertains to the notion of dark adaptation, which occurs to drivers at night when their eyes become adapted to the dark. Depending upon lighting sources, eye health, or illumination, this can require several minutes or more. Driver’s dark adaptation can be compromised by a bright object, such as an electronic sign. Therefore, it is recommended that illuminated signs have maximum brightness standards during hours of darkness. 2. Sign Location Most experts agree that electronic signs must not be located in high attention demand areas, such as high speed roadways, intersections, interchanges, construction zones, areas of frequent lane change, and heavy traffic areas. It has also been determined that distracting signs should not be located too close together because of their contribution to the overall level of distraction. 31 3. Sign Legibility It has been shown that people have a psychological need to complete one task before beginning another, which is known as the Zeigarnik effect. When an electronic billboard presents a visual message, a driver may be motivated to watch the message through to its completion. If a sign has poor legibility or visibility, due to poor resolution, character font, design, spacing, message length, or lighting, it can tend to pose a dangerous distraction as drivers attempt to read the text or view the message to its end. It is vital that signs contain a message that is legible and easy to comprehend quickly while driving. 4. Unexpected Stimuli An unexpected stimulus is an event not typical for the specific time or place, such as a flash of light, movement, or sound and can produce a surprise to which a person will redirect their attention to. Electronic signs have the potential to act as an unexpected stimulus and should be placed in locations that reduce the surprise element that can be caused by their movement. Electronic signs containing audio or pyrotechnic components should be prohibited. 5. Sign Condition Poor maintenance of electronic signs can greatly impact driver distraction. Drivers may devote significant amounts of time looking at a sign if the words or letters are difficult to read, parts have malfunctioned, or lights fail to illuminate, removing portions of a word or image. It is vital that signs are kept in good condition. 6. Proximity to Residential Areas The placement of electronic signs in relationship to residential areas is of vital importance. If located too close to residential neighborhoods, the glare and constant flashing lights would create a great nuisance, annoyance, and distraction to those properties. In addition, as was mentioned before, the size, appearance, and brightness of electronic signs would be completely out of character near a residential neighborhood. It is important that electronic signs are not located near residential areas. Regulations Although numerous local municipalities have current sign regulations, electronic sign companies are challenging whether the typical regulations and prohibitions in existing sign ordinances are applicable to the new video display technology. Specific definitions and specific regulations and/or prohibitions are needed in order to address the new video display technology. Numerous states and local municipalities have chosen to address the new video display technology signs specifically. As was indicated earlier, the City of Minnetonka is very concerned regarding the safety hazards that may be caused from the distractions of the electronic billboards. Therefore, they have chosen to shut off the power to two electronic signs that were already installed. 32 City officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul are focusing on regulating the electronic signs by keeping them confined to certain areas, such as on highways, but not near residential areas. On the other hand, some communities are responding to this latest sign issue by amending their Zoning or Sign Ordinances immediately. The City of Lakeville is working on updating their Sign Ordinance to include a detailed definition list and specific prohibitions for these new sign types (Exhibit C). The regulations are based on a detailed study that the City of Bloomington conducted. References The following references have been read and reviewed for the purpose of this memorandum. Brill, L.M. (2007, Nov. 1). Electronic LED Billboards: The New Voice of Business! Retrieved from http://www.screens.ru/eng/atv_systems_magazine/2007/1.htm Crosby, J. (2007, Jan. 22). Billboards: Signs of a digital divide. Retrieved from www.startrbune.com Human Centered Systems Team Office of Safety Research and Development—Federal Highway Administration. (2001, Sept. 11). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction. [Final Report submitted to the Office of Real Estate Services and Safety Core Business Unit—Federal Highway Administration]. Retrieved from www.fhw.dot.gov/realestate/elecbrd Johnson, S. H. (2006, Oct. 9). Advanced technology outdoor advertising. [Memorandum to the Mayor and the Council Members of the City of Bloomington]. Ludlow, K. (2007, Jan. 17). Electronic billboards called a distraction to drivers. Retrieved from http:www.10tv.com Peterson, D. (2007, Jan. 19). Electronic billboards land in court. Retrieved from www.startribune.com EXHIBIT C 34 EXAMPLE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE (Lakeville, Minnesota) Definitions: CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that has a readerboard for the display of text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic or symbol is defined by objects not consisting of an illumination device and may be changed or rearranged manually or mechanically with characters, illustrations, letters or numbers that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or surface of the sign structure. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN, ELECTRONIC: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non-pictorial text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic changeable copy signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. Electronic changeable copy signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or objects. Electronic changeable copy signs do not include official signs. ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPAY: SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, static images, static graphics or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade, re-pixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays. Electronic graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. FLASHING SIGN: A directly or indirectly illuminated sign or portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color effect by any means, so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming, graphic bursts showing movement, or any mode of lighting which resembles zooming, twinkling or sparkling. EXHIBIT C 35 ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign which contains an element designed to emanate artificial light internally or externally. MULTI-VISION SIGN: Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slats or cylinders that are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time one of two or more images. ROTATING SIGN: A sign or portion of a sign which turns about on an axis. SHIMMERING SIGN: A sign which reflects an oscillating sometimes distorted visual image. VIDEO DISPLAY SIGN: A sign that changes its message or background in a manner or method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, which may or may not include text and depicts action or a special effect to imitate movement, the presentation of pictorials or graphics displayed in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion, including, but not limited to the illusion of moving objects, moving patterns or bands of light, or expanding or contracting shapes, not including electronic changeable copy signs. Video display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. Regulations: 11-23-17: PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are prohibited: A. Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles any official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic- control device or any railroad sign or signal. B. All signs over six hundred (600) square feet in area, except within the P/OS District. C. All off-premises signs. EXHIBIT C 36 D. Balloon signs. E. Changeable copy signs, electronic, except as allowed by this Chapter. F. Content classified as "obscene" as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 617.241. G. Electronic graphic display signs. H. Flashing signs. I. Multi-vision signs. J. Portable signs. K. Roof signs. L. Rotating signs. M. Shimmering signs. N. Signs painted, attached or in any other manner affixed to trees or similar natural surfaces, or attached to utility poles, bridges, towers, or similar public structures. O. Video display signs.