Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1st CC Cover Sheet 04-15-08 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions04/15/08 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development/Planning Dynamic Display Ordinance Janet Jeremiah Regina Herron Requested Action Move to:  and Remove from table and reopen discussion; st  Approve 1 Reading of the Ordinance relating to signs with dynamic display. Synopsis The staff has amended the ordinance in the following areas. 1.Dynamic display would be permitted in the TC-C (commercial) district of the Town Center. There are 3 sub-districts of the Town Center, including commercial, mixed use and residential. Dynamic display would be prohibited in the TC-MU (mixed use) and TC- R (residential) districts of the Town Center. 2.Dynamic display would be permitted in the Public (PU) district. This would apply to schools, parks, and churches. 3.Allow 35% of a sign area to be dynamic . There are signs with dynamic display in the City. The amount of dynamic display per sign varies from 15-35% of the sign area. The City of Minnetonka allows a dynamic display to occupy no more than 35 percent of the actual copy and graphic area. 4.Certification of Brightness. This is a written certification from the manufacturer that the sign conforms to city brightness standards. Background The code currently prohibits dynamic display. There are existing dynamic display signs in the City that were built prior to the code change in 2005 that prohibits any illuminated sign that changes in either color or intensity of light, flashes, scrolls, or is animated. The proposed ordinance would be permissive and includes provisions relating to location, size, time, brightness and maintenance standards. The staff recommendation to the Planning Commission for time change was once every 24 hours. The Planning Commission felt that a standard of once every 20 minutes would be more reasonable and consistent with the City of Bloomington and Minnetonka. There are existing dynamic display signs in the City.  7727 35%.) Purgatory Creek Recreation Area - sf. Dynamic display - sf (  802430% Walgreens at Hwy 5 and Eden Prairie Road - sf. Dynamic display - sf ()  78 . 20 26% Kowalski’s at Hwy 5/Eden Prairie Road – sfDynamic display -sf().  80 . 12 5% SuperAmerica at Hwy 5/Eden Prairie Road – sfDynamic display -sf(1). Enforcement Since the last meeting the staff has talked with several communities relating to enforcement of brightness standards. Lincoln Nebraska, Mesa Arizona, Madison Wisconsin, Plymouth Minnesota, and Bloomington Minnesota measure brightness with a light meter when responding to a complaint. Minnetonka evaluates brightness by a three person committee. (City staff, sign industry, and a resident). The ordinance in these cities are relatively new, varying from last week in Plymouth Minnesota to two years in Lincoln Nebraska. The only city with enforcement experience since an ordinance was adopted is Lincoln Nebraska (two complaints). Plymouth and Lincoln Nebraska use a standard light meter converting the reading mathematically from foot-candles to nits (cost 900.00). Another method to measure light is with a spectroradiometer (cost $8-20,000.00). These are typically used by sign manufacturers in factory settings to establish light levels for the sign. Greg Rendell of the Minnesota Sign Association prefers a measured way of enforcement. Adam Skare of Daktronics, a sign manufacturer prefers a committee approach to evaluate brightness. Staff suggests a measured approach using a light meter. In the event of a complaint, the staff would also ask the sign manufacturer to use their own equipment to measure brightness and then we can compare the results. The number of potential complaints can be minimized by two requirements.  A written certification from the sign manufacturer that light intensity has been preset to conform to the brightness levels established by code and that the preset level is protected from end user manipulation by password protected software or other method. This would offer the advantage of ensuring that electronic signs at a minimum cannot exceed the standards.  Signs need a mechanism to automatically control sign light levels based on ambient light conditions. These conditions would place more responsibility on the manufacturer and owner of the sign and minimize the number of complaints and staff time needed to enforce the code. Attachments 1.Ordinance