Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

48 few land uses-new car dealerships, multi- tenant retail centers, and amusement estab- lishments-are permitted to have them. Placement and orientation. A minimum spac- ing requirement between signs and residential areas should be considered, as should a provision requiring that the sign face be oriented away from residential areas and other scenic or sensitive areas. The Baker and Wolpert stlldy recommended that dynamic signs be limited or prohibited at intersections, in demanding driving environments, and in places where they obstruct a driver's view. In Seattle, the sign face of on-premise digital signs must not be visible from a street, driveway, or sur- face parking area, nor may it be visible from a lot that is owned by a different person. Sign area. For on-premise signage, many ordinances include a limit on the percentage of the sign face that can be used for digital display. Thirty percent is common although in some areas, such as entertainment districts, that pro- portion may be much higher. Illumination and brightness. The ordi- nance should address the legibility and bright- ness of a sign both during the day and after dark. During the day the issue is reducing or minimizing glare and maintaining contrast between the sign face and the surrounding area. At night the issues are the degree of brightness and its impact on driver distraction and on light trespass into residential areas. In the study for the City of Minnetonka, researchers noted the challenge posed by this aspect of digital signs: "There is no objective definition of excessive brightness because the appropriate level of brightness depends on the environment within which the sign operates." Message duration and transition. The ordi- nance must include a minimum duration of time that a single message must be displayed. Typically this is expressed in terms of seconds. The San Antonio billboard ordinance requires each image to remain static for at least eight seconds and that a change of image be accom- plished within one second or less. The city's ordinance requires any portion ofthe message that uses a video display method to have a minimum duration of two sec- onds and a maximum duration of five seconds. Further, it requires a 20-second "pause" in which a still image or blank screen is showed following every message that is shown on a video display. Public service announcements. In exchange for permission to use digital displays, owners of billboards in Minnesota and San Antonio have agreed to display emergency infor- mation such as Amber Alerts and emergency evacuation information. Such a requirement can be included in an ordinance or imposed as a condition of approval. Whether undertaking a comprehensive revision of a sign ordinance or more limited, strategic amendments to address digital tech- nology, there are other common provisions related to electronic and digital signage that should be revisited as part ofthe rewrite. At the top of the list would be updating standards for conventional electronic message centers to reflect the latest research regarding driver dis- traction and message duration. Also, the boiler- plate provisions common to so many ordinances that prohibit signs that flash, are animated, or simulate motion should also be rethought. These provisions could conceivably be used to prohibit digital displays without additional regu- lations. The problem is that these characteristics are very rarely defined in the ordinance and remain open to interpretation. Also, whenever new regulations are being considered for digital billboards, jurisdictions should take the oppor- tunity to draft new provisions to address digital technology for on-premise signs as well. And, finally, any time the sign ordinance goes into the shop for repair-whether to address digital signage or to make broader changes-is a good time to remove or revise any provisions that vio- late content neutrality rules. I ~~~~K~tsfS IN MARY\Jl.ND By Lara Lucero, AICP The Baltimore Sun hit the nail on the head when it reported on March 12 "[t]he state's highest court declared that Maryland law does not require local governments to stick to their mas- ter plans or growth-management policies in making development decisions." Trail, et al. v. Terrapin Run, LLC, et al. pre- sented an important question for the court to address: What link is required between the com- munity's adopted plan and the decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to grant or deny a request for a special exception? In a 4 to 3 vote, the majority concluded that Artide 66B, the state planning law, is permissive in nature and plans are only advisory guides, so a strong link between plans and implementation is not required. The court affirmed the county's ZONING PRACTICE 4.08 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6