Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action form dated October 14, 1997 ITEM# DATE 10/14/97 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REQUEST TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS. Action Form Summary: This is a request to allow electronic message signs within the Sign Ordinance. Approval of the ordinance change, as attached, is recommended BACKGROUND: In May, the Story County Bank & Trust, located at 402 Lincoln Way, made a request that the City Council consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to permit an electronically controlled message sign for community messaging as part of the time and temperature sign that they wanted to install at their new bank. The current Sign Ordinance prohibits such signs in Section 5.214, which states: "No person shall have or permit on any premises:... (3) Any signs which employ flashing, blinking, or rotating lights, except time and temperature signs." A Staff Report was prepared for the June 24, 1997 City Council meeting, outlining the issues with regard to this request, which included free speech, equal protection, traffic safety, and aesthetic considerations. At that time the City Council tabled the request for an amendment to the sign ordinance to allow for further discussion between the bank and staff. Based on a research of the literature on sign regulations and a review of court cases, it appears clear that the City may not restrict and permit signs on the basis of content. Therefore a sign cannot be limited to community messaging or other specific type messaging. Furthermore, in order to provide for equal protection, the City Council needs to be aware that the sign regulations must permit and prohibit signage for all businesses similarly. Therefore it is not possible for the City to allow one type of business to have a particular method of commercial signage and to exclude other businesses from the same type of commercial messaging. The remaining two issues that need to be discussed in determining whether or not the City should allow electronically controlled message signs are traffic safety and traffic hazards, and aesthetics. The current prohibition of signs with flashing, blinking, or rotating lights serves to overcome the potential problems of traffic safety and aesthetics, since they are not allowed. In researching other ordinances from other cities, Staff has come to the following conclusions: 1. Cities simply prohibit electronic message signs along with other flashing signs. 2. Cities interpret electronic message signs as not being flashing signs and thus permit them similar to other signs. Also, in Staffs research of other ordinances, nowhere did staff find an ordinance that addressed the particular safety and aesthetic issues relative to the frequency of electronic messages, time duration of the message, and other aspects that are difficult to administer. Attached to this action form is a proposed ordinance that would permit electronic message signs and attempts to regulate the frequency and duration of the message display. Also, the proposed regulation is designed to prohibit electronic message signs where the message is continuously running. These aspects of electronic message signs will likely be difficult to administer. However, if it is the desire of the City Council to allow such signs, there are methods to address the negative effects of flashing signs, which can be distracting to motorists, who must also pay attention to what is happening on the street they are traveling on. Staff has met with the bank officials and has reviewed information from the Federal Highway Administration and other sources regarding safety and environmental design considerations in the use of commercial electronic variable message signage. This information was utilized in preparing a proposed sign ordinance amendment that is attached to this Action Form. Some of the issues that staff incorporated in the proposed amendment include providing for a minimum "on-time" for an electronic message. Studies have indicated that an "on- time" of less than four (4) seconds is too distracting with other competing demands, therefore staff is suggesting a minimum "on-time" of four (4) seconds for an electronic message. The driver must also be able to read the entire message or two partial messages between the time the message is first readable and the time the driver passes the sign. Therefore staff is suggesting that the maximum time for an entire message to appear is eight (8) seconds. The eight seconds is based on a motorist traveling at the 85th percentile speed on Lincoln Way in the vicinity of downtown and viewing letter sizes similar to other signs in the area. Staff is also suggesting that continuously running messages not be permitted. Each message must have a finite length and a blank time when the screen is completely dark. Continuously running signs have been shown to be distracting to the motorist, as they take longer to comprehend and thus would present more of a traffic safety hazard. Three other conditions are suggested for electronic message signs, which relate to both traffic safety and aesthetic concerns. They are as follows: 1. No more than one electronic message sign shall be installed on or in relation to the same building; 2. An electronic message sign shall not have more than two sides on which messages can be displayed by electronic means; and 3. This type of signage shall only be allowed in commercially and industrially zoned areas. These requirements are to prevent sign clutter and to limit the competition for the attention of the motorist. In summary, if the City Council believes the Sign Ordinance should be amended to allow electronic message signs, staff believes the attached ordinance amendment addresses many of the concerns that relate to safety to the motorist. Since electronic message signs, by their very nature, involve animated display of message content, it could be argued that such signs are less aesthetic than conventional signs. Therefore, the concern for aesthetics has been addressed to a lesser degree. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can approve an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow electronic message signs as per the attached ordinance draft. 2. The City Council can decide not to change the existing Sign Ordinance to allow electronic message signs. 3. The City Council can modify the attached ordinance draft and approve a modified amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow electronic message signs. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1. This action will amend the Sign Ordinance to allow electronic message signs with specific controls on how they are operated because of traffic safety concerns. COUNCIL ACTION: