Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10.A.1. Valleyfair Appeal of Planning Commision Resolution Approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Res. No. 7468
General Business 10. A. 1. SHAKOt'EE TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Alex Sharpe, Planner DATE: 07/15/2014 SUBJECT: Valleyfair Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution Approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD)Amendment Regarding Site Signage-Res. No. 7468 (B) Action Sought Adopt Resolution No. 7468, a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission approving Resolution PC 14-020 granting an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Valleyfair. Background On March 27, 2014, Thomas Suel, on behalf of Valleyfair, applied for a Planned Unit Development amendment to alter their existing entry sign to a new electronic message center sign. The request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 5, 2014 after the applicant asked that the Public Hearing be continued at the May 8, 2014 meeting. City Code Section 11.50 E. states that the Planning Commission may approve minor changes to an approved PUD plan provided these changes do not affect more than 10% of the site area. As this amendment was less than 10% of the site area, thus the Planning Commission had authority to approve the amendment. The proposed sign included full-motion commercials, dynamic animation features, and increased in size by approximately 163 square feet. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-020, approving an an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Valleyfair with the following conditions: 1. All previous conditions of the Valleyfair PUD and subsequent amendments remain in effect, except conditions and plans related to the existing entry sign. 2. Existing free-standing and way-finding signage will be removed from the site at the time of installation of the new signage. 3. The size and location of the electronic message center sign shall be constructed generally consistent with the submitted plans dated 09/13/13 (exhibit 4), provided the plans do not conflict with Building Code, and Fire Code regulations. (In short, the requested increase in area was approved.) 4. The electronic message center sign shall comply with City Code section 11.70 in relation to sign operation for electronic message centers. The Planning Commission Resolution allows the sign to increase in size, but denies the request for full-motion commercials, and dynamic displays, per City Code. This was also the recommendation of City staff, and outside reviewing agencies. On June 16, 2014, Mindy Lawrence, on behalf of Valleyfair filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. The appeal does not contest the Commission's decision regarding full-motion video and dynamic displays, but rather how frequently the message changes, varying from City Code's requirement of 1 minute to 8 seconds. The applicant has supplied the City Council with three exhibits which are attached to the applicant narrative. The third attachment is an excerpt from a US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Study, the full report is available upon request. As part of an appeal, the City Council is tasked with determining if there were errors or omissions in the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment subject to the conditions outlined above. Staff and the Commission expressed concern over distraction that full motion video and dynamic display animation could cause. The applicant did not and has not presented the Planning Commission with the option for an 8 second hold time without the use of full-motion commercials, and dynamic animation features. Recommendation Staff suggests that there is not evidence that the Planning Commission's review of the Planned Unit Development amendment was in error or subject to omissions. The original proposal from Valleyfair did not include the option for an 8 second hold time, nor was this addressed at the public hearing. Based on this, Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 7468, a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission approving Resolution PC 14-020 granting an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Valleyfair. Budget Impact There is no impact on the City's General Fund budget. Relationship to Vision Goal B: Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth development and change. Requested Action Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 7468, a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution PC14-020 granting an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Valleyfair. Attachments: Planning Commission Report and Attachments Valleyfair Appeal Letter and applicant exhibits1-3 Resolution No. 7468 5. si{:vKO } �- TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Alex Sharpe, Planner DATE: 06/05/2014 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - Planned Unit Development Amendment at Valleyfair for new Signage Caselog No 14-020 Discussion Site Information Applicant: Thomas Suel Property Owner: Valleyfair! Location: 1 Valleyfair Drive Current Zoning: Major Recreation MR Adjacent Zoning: North: N/A South: Light Industry, I-1 West: Light Industry, I-1 East: Agricultural Preservation AG and Highway Business, B-1 Lot Size: 257 acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Site Map Exhibit 2: Existing Sign Diagrams/photos Exhibit 3: Applicant Narrative Exhibit 4: Proposed Sign Exhibit 5: Scott County Comments Exhibit 6: Legal Description Exhibit 7: Resolution Introduction Thomas Suel, on behalf of Valleyfair! applied to amend the Valleyfair! Planned Unit Development to change and update their existing entry sign to an electronic message center sign. The existing sign was constructed in 1992 along Highway 101 at the intersection of Highway 101 and Valley Park Drive. The proposed sign would use the existing sign's pole structure. As this proposal is less than 10% of the total area for the Planned Unit Development the under City Code the Planning Commission is allowed to make the decision on this PUD amendment request.. City code defines electronic messaging centers as the following: "a sign or portion of a sign that can electronically display any combination of words, graphics, pictorial text and multiple colors. In the case of gas stations, pricing boards for gasoline/diesel shall not be counted toward allowable signage area." Signs in the Highway Business and Major Recreation zones are permitted one electric message center per parcel with the following conditions: a) Only one type of electronic signage is permitted per parcel. Either an alpha/numeric monochrome sign can be used or an electronic message center sign may be used. b) The electronic message center sign shall be limited to 32 square feet in area (per side for double sided signs). The sign area for the electronic message center sign shall count against the overall signage area allowed for the use. c) The electronic message center sign may not change more often than once every 1 minute. d) All electronic message center signs must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness of the display as the natural ambient light conditions change. e) Electronic message center signs shall be limited to 500 NITS from sunset to sunrise. These signs shall be limited to 7500 NITS from sunrise to sunset. Additionally, the sign shall not exceed .3 foot candles above ambient light levels 100 feet from the sign face. f) The electronic message center sign shall be located a minimum of 125 feet from the sign structure to the boundary of a residential use. g) Only one electronic message center sign shall be allowed per sign face. h) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects. i) The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. j) If there is a violation of brightness or frequency of message changing standards, the adjustment must be made within one business day upon written or verbal notification from the City. k) Electronic message center signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner/operator must immediately stop the display when notified by the city that it is not in compliance with this chapter. Considerations The existing sign is 13' x 26' (338 square feet), and 36' tall. The proposed sign is 17'-6"x 28' - 8" (501.7 square feet) and 37' - 6"tall. With the increase in size the sign will sit lower on the pole, but still extend 1' - 8"taller, and 1' -4" closer to Highway 101. The existing sign is lit using a series of light-bulbs that change intermittently to create the appearance of moving animation. Per the applicant, the proposed sign will comprise of static and dynamic formats, including full motion commercials in a 30 second duration. This will include images moving across the screen in various directions, which does not meet City code which states that electronic message center signs "may not change more often than once every 1 minute" and "the images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects" Other city departments and outside agencies have had the opportunity to review and comment on this application. Several departments including Shakopee Fire and the City Administrator expressed concern over the impact the dynamic portions of the sign in relation to traffic along Highway 101. The area surrounding this corridor/intersection is not intended for pedestrian traffic, therefore the sign is intended to be directed at vehicles traveling the Highway 101 corridor. Scott County has also expressed concern over the motion as proposed and is not supportive of the dynamic nature of the sign. Please see exhibit 5 for Scott County comments. Continued Public Hearing The applicant asked that the Public Hearing be continued to offer further research. With the increased time staff was able to preform additional research into Federal Highway Administration guidelines, and other City's with amusement parks codes as examples. The Federal Highway Administration advises communities to follow the example of their surveyed communities, but allows communities to create more or less restrictive code. The Guidance letter(exhibit 8) is attached and details suggestions for City code including hold-times and restriction on transitions, full-motion video, movement and animation. Per the guidance of the Federal Highway Administration signs should be restricted to static images without animation or full motion video. City staff also researched several other communities with large amusement parks throughout the nation. Several code sections are attached (exhibit 9) for reference. Staff found that the majority of City's where large amusement parks were located regulated digital signs to static displays with no animation or transition effects. City's researched included Wisconsin Dells, Kansas City Missouri, Sandusky Ohio, Muskegon, Michigan, and Charlotte North Carolina. Findings Section 11.50 (Planned Unit Development District) Subd. 6 A Criteria for granting a Planned Unit Development, lists the following criteria: Criteria No. 1: Whether the proposed development is consistent in all respect with the comprehensive plan and with this section. Finding No.1: Valleyfair! has been in operation on this site since 1976, and the comprehensive plan guides the property for Entertainment Criteria No. 2: Whether the proposed development, including deviations from design standards of the underlying zones, is compatible with surrounding land uses. Finding No. 2: Valleyfair!is directly adjacent to Highway 101,which is designated as an arterial roadway. The proposed sign deviates from established zoning ordinance and may pose safety concerns for traffic on Highway 101 which is in close proximity. The established land use of the site as an Entertainment venue will not be changed as part of this request. The existing sign deviates from the development standards on landscaping and the height/size of the sign, as well as the electronic design features. The proposed sign will not significantly increase these deviations in regards to height and sign area . Staff believes that dynamic displays directly adjacent to a 4-lane divided roadway may be a distraction to drivers and is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Animated electronic signs are not permitted at any other location in the City. Criteria No. 3: Whether the proposed development, including deviations from development standards of the underlying zone, provides adequate open space, circulation, parking, recreation, screening, and landscaping. Finding No. 3: The proposed amendment does not affect the open space, circulation withing the site, parking, recreation, and landscaping. The existing sign deviates from the development standards on landscaping and the height/size of the sign. Criteria No. 4: Whether the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natural terrain characteristics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. In evaluating each individual proposal, the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial. Finding No. 4: This proposal does not affect the overall density of the development of the site. Criteria No. 5: Whether there exists an overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. However, the architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. Finding No. 5: The amendment to the PUD will not alter the overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. Criteria No. 6: Whether the proposed PUD plan would afford a greater general public benefit than would be realized under the underlying zoning district and/or general zoning provisions. Finding No. 6: The amendment to the PUD will not alter the sites public benefit. Staff Recommendation ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may approve the Planned Unit Development amendment as recommended by staff. 2. The Commission may approve the Planned Unit Development amendment with revised conditions. 3. The Commission may deny the request with revised findings. 4. The Commission may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Commission may table the request for additional information from staff or the applicant. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the Planned Unit Development amendment allowing an electronic messaging center sign without the dynamic animation features, with the following conditions: 1. All previous conditions of the Valleyfair! PUD and subsequent amendments remain in effect, except conditions and plans related to the existing entry sign. 2. Existing free-standing and way-finding signage will be removed from the site at the time of installation of the new signage. 3. The size and location of the electronic message center sign shall be constructed generally consistent with the submitted plans dated 09/13/13 (exhibit 4), provided the plans do not conflict with Building Code, and Fire Code regulations. 4. The electronic message center sign shall comply with City Code section 11.70 in relation to sign operation for electronic message centers. Action Requested Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. PC14-020 as presented. Should the Commission choose a different approval option, it should provide staff with specific direction about the conditions of approval it wishes to change. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Site Map Exhibit 2: Existing Sign Diagrams/photos Exhibit 3: Applicant Narrative Exhibit 4: Proposed Sign Exhibit 5: Scott County Comments Exhibit 6: Legal Description Exhibit 7: Resolution Exhibit 8: Federal Highway Administration Recommendations Exhibit 9: Amusement Park Digital Sign Code Examples —', –' H /7?' ill cv r N. d . iI t 11 I L rl u7 \-. ill c ; i Lei \ I/ -,., 1.r ., /i / / ,../ , l /// r I C I /� a, m i . 1iwaggie Illiri c E / �/ /i .tn 1 'f ...I / /1 CD / fliiiti 1 7711_ / ) 2,3 c r I f f 1 � a t' .G C fa iiIt I y U (i fu f ff c tt I � + �N L N -rti LE f � 1 y q f f I\ / m a 'O I 1 b \1 i / 1 1. il L9 E Tit . . :: -_ , . •: . . .:. ... . . . ,. -, ' ' . . - . , , . . . _. . ,,,,. : ._. _ • . ,.: ....L ._ ,___ .:._ .,4.___.__ ..::,:: ...:-.:::.-_--;-7zy_,-. q.:-,.:::-m-,-.,. :.• - . ..„.:, ,.,. , : „-- .-,:,,7,:72,-.:,-.;,_,. ,.,„-i_-:::-..'!-:::_.-..-„---.--. ::- -_ __ .__ h .:1., ,. ,, . t..„...„:„..1,4...-,: -J-.4„-:,-,,...,;; ;"!$,..„Ay-:----,-k'''.-•'' ..:' -..- -. .. -'-rr- fl : R.',,'.2.:-....1 s.'''..:'-----..;• L ' .:::',.:'':: ' ',..'.;.1-.,,,.,-;f.:-::: ..,-;,.4 -.4'.,,: ...•; :".#.,':p',: ,iii-: --:'':-:':- -'.9----z .'L:4---1-: t-:-..:...'(--‘2-•'-'_'-----::::=--'-:_11 :.;,:-.-----:.:.''''-.:':-.-:::::1-4-'''-':si!--.` :..•:.-:-.--7:Z--, :::;-..-_,:.',.....•-•.:1:-..:-'5:"_:::.-.r 'i'.'T.-1..../Ikava„ ,....,..----*-NiAlk-V.. .:;:av(;-'''',`',-'',.P.7:, .:. : ,,•-..2, _ - ,,"i ... 1-0::::,...:,-.:,:-.- -...:;,•-,:.,::.::./=::-.-. . 2-.,..i.-:....,..,..1,,,,z,,,:„.,;,,,I...,:i.-/-:,---,-.;-,-..!‘; ,. 47.4.::'i‘::•-•-• -:-'-•----•----:-1' '-.---1- ''_,,• - ''' ••--74.. ...'::.,, 1-.1;.,t.:,,'7,1,.::...•... . '• --1; I ans,,,.4.;rik 00:3-ciki-W.Z-ie - -,-. -.•:- -- -: ----',..i.,.-. --„,?.-..-",:m":-,--, '' '- 1,-0.6 : .-tr:;•..; j7,•:','.-.1= ':;..'•''Iva . -,:lik, '; - -''''''7": z' _'''.. .'-'• -:'-:, "'::," .'-::::."-%'-...:-:"'"-.4`"'"';-'- "... . '.., It, 1;".1,-:.; ', -'", :AMIN IF!IN 11 nirEar5i.-,_,,,,, ,. 27-,..?..,...,...: .,-:‘:,f4;-:.„, ..,._1::'::'.r LL-4.--:-....: - -im "MINE 1 i'ANN ' ..4,„,..:,..:,:...:.., _:.,,.._:..•,,,,,,;;;._,..... .:: _,.__i,iT.,.,....:,, .. . , ,:i.,,_,,, ,,.. _1.... viii [ . ' ... ... ..:Av:-,--;Z: mos:,,,prig,--7,.r;.:,-L,'",--..,-4•4=Q11Y,..-:-..,"..E.7-. •. - . . . ' :: : ;. ::'Hi'-'-''.. •.:::-: .-. .-:'..-2..J- ',... ••::--' •' '.1'' :. ..: '' .. . -1-. .1.-'•.., .AIBP .:-. 17'"''°' -'-'PV ..-!'<.t; 4?,--- ..-,1--.1.''...-±'. '' ..-1. .. -.: - :- . - '-..':-..: -.'.. " 11t!.../--:'''. '''.::."'',...t';'::..::1-:t.': ..:'`'.,.'1 .- ..1101;.,'',,5-.•.,':-Et_,l-wlta.,5-7--.,-.__--tr-_ . .....-=II- .';:ii,y..i .-J.,,:-•„7„,g;--, -,..',- . -- -- - ' • , ii,'f---.',.1.',:_-_-_-..-,..'.-c:-.:-=-•.----.--;,-.--''-- ' .--::::"-,--."_"• '" : .--''' --' 1 =-,-i 104:-.-:',..',..','.....,..A7.,.4.---:.-- .1matEl=;:„.....Vg-"*7_7.. 7—.1,-.-.7-7-777..,,..."'Wt A.47..:.',--•-..,,,-...!;;:, ,..,_ •,.. , - •. - -, , -,...':,;---',,,::„,-.-..----,,.'_:-----,",/,`-'--- ', ------- ,-,', -, .•-_, --, : - --,,1'. - I-,-,.1,_, -...,.-"-.;:-_-.; ,-.4-ifft ,---1 alemps.411,,,,ERIN ,2'z''.---,,; -- •,--''',.:7.,„'';'.%.._...?-; - :, : -: • • ' '- --..., .-'.. --,,i-, „-.:. ,-. -. I;,,,,3.., , -..-,1',.:-..,,,... -,,,,-A 4 li: ' :.„ , - :-- , -F,J---F.--,---Entn 'ti-7'r:-.--- '4-:. -i '--;:::' '-1'''::-: '' .'1';'-4"214'11:4-'.. .-• -''' .!-'''• ''''' •-...-41 „,.4,ft: :.':r .• -'-- : • 4:71.41 i'a.i..P..-_:" .i._'-.. ,LI'W.i:C.::-.'::-.- •-•:::,:::.-; 77. .•:,...... .....--_=i .;. ...A.:•;...,:v.,:-.?._;.."-11:,;,,,y.,. .J:-•:,.,-,7.:.A'::,-.40.5.A.1.*',i ..-1-.- ' -: :'-- -.T.::: • •,--,-,..,,?;,...,,e..,-....-..,,,,,,.A.,kl,,,,, -;:._Fil,:i.:,;?.;., 1,..4,64.1...„4,Rourwl-rimE - -..!tia41',5-i'4..-,:,-7. kUliliegglii:-••;:'',.-?•;=:':::Z{:41',74'10•FiklaM,':-4'• Ikinlifffirikr)f'...mBW..;:',';.-''''''''. 13. ' .-• - -, . .• ' ' ':-_rr '• N-1*-0 e.:„..i.°44:-.‘:-?.„51-,:-;.,1•0:7.g•ft.-.)-.g‘'-k-f.'''-,'%.,,:,,',4...•4,„...---.:,,-,-.4,-_-:','`;-!-:',-:::-!''.,*"...;',4PW-K,...Z4-7,4iik.;`-; 11 1. i WI'r pi-_,J*.!...MIgAilit-:-.-'7,7',-, RP-4.k;Pli.::-,,-:i:,, , .. ..-_-'.- tif.1.'skVeitt.-4_:''7:".4:;k4t-'!„:..'4' ...:44)4-,-,04iffiff4,.444; L I M mas,4,,,,,,:whkza. ,07,70,-.4,z1stko,_...1 --4.I.,„.,sf.,-......,:.:,•... -. ‘. ..,„ ,.... ” 4. ,A1-t'.-41ttItT:.:.de4-•-:: ."'-‘...:,';`PAi.:,:okra-x4;01*M. i ',-- t.'"a-51 5g..-0.,-1441.'flikksi-z--14--Smit ,;it:•1.-`i,if.:; „:-,_6:;-;.,.A.-,w.1,A4.tA- ..' •:- -. ..;•''_4,:•:,.:Z.,,,,1z2(44.,14fgek'P .JotA4,3;,,(1, rfii-;.,:;;,yt::..:i,,,„1,-:.;..F.itmii;.t0mgza-Zlg;-iZZ:mV.,,.g,glgI5. _'-.,t;:.,-..,.-..L,,,,H7tri-7.--.-:.;.:::,,i.,.:-...;_.--::_---7-j-77-77. :1.i'.4.;=.41r4•;?- .J.z72,, ;;Iii-;-__,Of.2,:. - '''...?-.7,,;,..,if-'1'-'- --;:friljrt-c caqs- ,, ,”,wt",-_-pf7:21ta:`5-NI.t.',:ti.211 „;.it.v.77.7.01.2,1... ..17., .'i."-,-.1 t. -:',7P_r.,' •',r. . . ._ '•i. V.,.,., $ i-:.si-iZAirf.I.Z.,-,. .11N;'-;•'•;•.':',:'11,11ti:V% 7: -:-:04f.liffi; ;',.,:* e,w,--rzi...- '=.-bt.,U4,1445-2,-114filifi=4.:4.c.--'" ,-7,,,;1:,...'1, -N.-m111-156BiEWR"I'112 .,,..._- ,NA 7,,,,,! -- !Pt P ;41:10.,,,,,t-V4:.:41::.0,414 -i!''..;. ',i'47':f;rr,L4",-.Nyttionittm-,,,gighirn---- -,,, J.Dit'-,- -.._°= -,---i,•7-A4lim,,,-,..„...,--.aroTv_AtAl - - - ...-,3.1'.,:-:,--..,,-, " 1111WW-1 "-.,=.,,„;44%".;;Z,:;,,,.:zi;j,:M,;_b,-.'1,3-5.-4 :- -: . . .' -- •• , Iku gg,. - ,‘?Att`..444-1:.,it4.4:4;gie,-;.!.,-..g.i yr,..?7„7:5;. tc.!:..,:-0:::\w,,,,...7.-4.:;-,,,? ,„,-*--*4, .. ., , 4eir.F.,,,-.,:7, 7...:!:..----!,:.. -lliiit..,:i-..;:, 411-,..1,w--,5,1;f,oi:‘,;1-i-.5-ylhicii.',:-'0,•t•ii-4.4-:?;±.,.1-,.',._:',.:y .,;.• . -4,112111 N-,:::-•--,-:':.:--.-..-i- ,`'•-:•-•-' .,.'.'e!,/---7...0 -47,-,00- -as .=.a .,,-.2,:,_;,,,,t-,,!:73..7. -.--....:.--;:-.-:,,.',,,-.4.,:y.,,--..,.::-.--!::-,...-.. ---,..-- :,... , .- ..,,..„ ...I..... ,:. . ..,,.1.,_ .... ..:,..., i'.. ,.. . .. ., - _ ....„,„ „yr, _., H. . . ....i ,-,,11 t.g ..., _ iranl -1 .:1,4-e:t....'74---,:::.,-",-:-;:',...--:-. •-'.:--2.='...,''--'r,ii:-,...'-_-;:it'.- ''.•-;',,,4-)i Emil -: ‘;`,_ 1 . 'i'-- ----1 ' ' -=''' Ill--.. i -i ' 4 1,- .ti. .. ■ F,‘:.-4,i,.-:-......, i n'.' -.." r ii - .:• : .' .Y.'i ::_i- -,R, ---. ''i'.. A -..-, , - .!u"-:-----, --,-'--,,,,Tiv-'',i-v,-+-• - ' :- t:.1-.: ---2.-'•-:-.--- --','..-- • . .-; . - -:Alik... -'' •. . -.:. : '-.-a • -. :-.,:,- . =;.•..-ii.,./. -.. .,,.,-I :-:-„ -.;.--- '', . • - ,,s-t-.--,:e-',- •- ;--- • _ - --.-• L --,-,-F . -' - - - ---, -- - ---, ) ' r- ,i)•' : .._ ":"" "r' ' :. ' . ': ','. .'''',4'1 , 1-::,k:- '.',..'.; -,'1,"11r-'. - !-.4:._•,,4_,J,_:.9 . .'. ..., _,:- ..',7-' ' ' - • '-',•, ' .'It(3.•':..:-"''''''.'' ' -- - : .:- '. - -.- -). l' ---1, ■• .J 4h, .-- 1;: -.F4.. ''Ii- tr'e'•- - . - Sj -. ::.;iii1-•;. .1:-%:1.2.----:1 -..-,.--,! ' .-' :-.•-:':-,'''',---4-- '-i:' ' .. .:j- ;-: -' ' , ,6 I'' , ::• --',-.-.-,f,.'.;-74;i1INVIIWO..g,----:-.4'±117, . 9--,..-.,=, —'• --L"--'• "-• .-` : :;••• . • .. - -•-• i •. .- ." \;:-.;11. :-2:'.- --k. r ■,-.,.....n. ..0., ,....L:..-,'7, . 11,,:' :: F . .: ...,.':- . .-:---''''' ':..'''''' -'.'-.''''.7-''' ..•: . ,' -''' . .4 1;ei . '1 1.-1 4--,...:-..-:.-'■ :: , ' ' _ - --.. _ - •_, --- -,,- -.7 i -.-,-d)' • 1 :q' I 1" ,!:.:..4-..,...-',:.,-:,-;::-..3:7'.'!:1 • r.I' .,1 • . . 1 .: - -. , , -,:-,, , :-,. ., ,:, I: ..-- :,-1 klimsmall :... ,,,.fl ., , :,--•!-'-' Z./.,:s - i• •.,::--,--:' ,' •:.' ;,.- -. ;_,..; ,.:' . .--'7- -...:', .-, ..7..;_ ..I.ii ..-...„...-. ..,--..,. ,..,. . . .,-_, :: _. 1, -.7.--.....!."...,.1?--.,:f.A7: :;4.,..w.f.,:g. ;....-..,, ..• ,...;. , : - . ,,...,-,-..,- -- : . .- . .-.:,..-...-;iyi.,•.-:••• - :...• ...-..-1 •' i.--,-.",:, •-.1 • 1,,,..::...-. Iv..,..iy.:.;i-al -----,,, , --.T. : '77i-,_,--,5-kf,fir,f-r,_.!.:-..,:',44-g.-41--,- :• "' - • '':. '''.- -.'..:-,',.-"..-..•-•;..:1-:::'..i.; . .---';-'71 .; :,;-. . .-i.:,-i'--,',. '''-i..1.: -r,.714:-:' '--_---,->1--1.mlkli ----,, --..LL,__L- --...mis-PI' - -... ,.0.•-•1:- - ,-:_. ="-- •-: •- - , .. ..• ..- „.:„..''f...•7-:..:r.i-..„ ,. .r-:r.-- •:: :::: ..1..-:.ii .-...,..'.,...:::::,,,,,,,420kz,i,--_-: . • --,..,-.4. , ,,,-.: ... v,,,oil. ' --: ,4=3,i, •-,:. ; ..-.,...;•:. , -:.:,...,- .„....i•.:.,_.. I-;:, ,,i .,-,:‘,..zT. ..., -,,,.*:.,..,t,„ :..-. ..411 win p ,.ij„,,' _, :;777., _A:,,,=.4,:..,..-.,:,,=„z...-.-,%:1,,..„ ,,. • If::--1-:•,•-_--,:.;::: -'-..--- -- •:- •• ,'. - F' = ::-..).- - :..1. law'..,..,„ ,:;,.-:i.-,:-....,. gi ,.--'1::,------:--...,-,--.- ..: .::--- ::- :.-.- --:.--:: •-----.J.:'', -,----,,,-,---.7..„`.7; ;---:-.2-17111w--- 1 - r-r-,--: :;„--.,,-,-:::- ,:,.,•.-.--_,-;;-4,41.___- -:--. : -- ,_..,.:..,_.-__:-.. -,. ,. ----.- -.-:-. -• . :::,...:. -;-I.' 'Tr,: -r'... 111111:p.-.-,;.72._;-_,:: :-..,:c,..4...MOIM',.:‘'.7t tr_mor..1''..'. l'----''''''-•-='_'::1-1.__.--;'J.2.-,'' i' 7,,,-7--_,,,, -,.:, _--,-.------7- • , . ...-.'.,'.' : .r...;:::•.-1:1'...- ■"-,. • .-, 17 ftiM4111M1 ' '- -I ... .,.......,,,-.,..- -..,-,- . ..,7:_,:•:.,i., :..•.-1, ..- -- -." 1.:,-..*;-, :: -.•-:q ,, :.:-.1-:„,:,:.. ' .„,.. i ,-7,--e., :..:1_:•:--,:i.:.,---3.,-.::i . -.._ ;.:.*: . . : - . • ,::: - i ,- -.:::;,1 .- !.-k,vv--.. ,..,..-....-1:-.:::.4-,J.,-[imam ,(4- . ,..„ ..; .: • :. ._,_ -_ ,_ - - .-,, T. ' ''1:-.7.- ''-',-f-'-'-'•'-'. .- 1- ,-"avil - 1. - 1,-..-- 1---...- , i, 7 _-_:._. :,, .,. .PW,FIE?=;,...?..: .'. -.,.._ .. . •.... ,..- - .. 1.....1,; -..- --...:: .-::• -.---.- '.., •- .. . ...- '. --;•.i . -:•.1,:7.-..z ...::-...!--.---,-.44-: m;31 71.Ttl::'---,,7 -.',..-,••74 ,,ti.:k,11 -: 1-'-:::'- : ',.-.."-. •-,-:. • ' ' :, -:. . '''' 1".'' :r..';'''il I. ,•- :.'..‘ii:':.. •.-4' ':•1:''',- '''-;,1 1116-,..: ...i."....,-,: ':':'..1*-!..."a,,M1 .",;;; :: ... 0 ,_ „ .:. ,_.:, .: : .•..r•,: :.. --,:-- -..,:i ,.r„- '-. '; -'-1-.-Irv.; H ..,.. -,..-, , ,,..;;-,.:"R.L.•,,-^.:-?.._- ::.;,-,.,),•...'.::f,-,;,-,1: •:::: - . :- :::-.:-•- 11,-.P:.-i, - ,..' :,... - - '- kII: . . ' • - II: •- : z.' i: :: ., .-..- 1 II ii.-,"'--r•I .-1:-..-:• 1-.....,"- 1" '''- R...L.-. l".:: -.r...: .. ' 1 .m. 411111 I irl:-.• 1-•::-''•' li."-•-"7"-'-_,,,,,Vaginil*.',.-F : . ' • . - :-.-,2";.,-_,-,.--.,-.:;,:it,,,:„.:.'F. i.--,.....:-:-..: •-:,-..r. -1 ._1 -..-:, -- ,,,''' low. I 1 if IL y. -, -:.-.,.-•;.----,. ._,,--- -,,,,..1 ...,0.0,-,, ,„„::::;::,---;,..i;:,..,.0.-,1 ;• . .,.... - .--. . ; i.. 1 , ...■',-.. :-.- ti-BIttim. Epp",:.:::.:,.:,-•,";•_; i05":.'"-a(igi, ':',.,;,!,.;:e!:3-,-.-. 1. _ :: . ' ..'. . • .1i, 1T,..,1-:..--- '1.-.::i-...': -- '''..-: •--:., . 1. 4 Er•-•-,.-'--'... 1M..1.164E.PP7M`I.:'F',..:ionem.,:-.'-'--_-'..''c.1-,-!.-1,11 . -.. - .,; - - Er. ; :, ,.- .'Si,..--'-'-';-. -' ' ' - - 1 1 -• j' -' . .1 ,-'.-IMI alarrargliall., ,'!- -rt. ''' ,'--....' ..-.. .-• • ' : -r- .,- ' P4.-.:.-4e ' l '':.4:414':-4--.-'-.- --- -- . t - 1 -' 1. -' I e-..;,-,..,Wr-'..r;.1"....:4F4, ....,..,..........„,... ,. t..t.....*:, . . -',.. . . • --, _...,..., _., r.:,,...., ..,, ....„.„ :..,...-.T......;. - ... r Or r , ..tr-n, •i , ,.,.: --7- ..i::::=,:',10,1-..!t-,-..,:,,-_.5.--;,, ,i,1&_.;,',,... . , -. -- - • • -- -•---'. 5-,• -' ',, . gl,-1.1',L,3,--1. :--f..-•_::L.,,,,,....,.:_-_:.,:._-•_____, __, ._--- , , . . I,,... - . . . ,-;:••::: -I- . . . ..--., .: ... ." . • -.,,, _ . - : , • , ..,... _, . - . - . - , . .., . ,• .. .. . . , r _ ., ,..„ • " . . . . .. , . _ , . . ' ' , ' ' -,:li • 1.- . -.: • ,. - -,- 7--"e E 8 O a a ' `Y' N x Cell``J V i • '°' d I-7-Q) iti) \ `ta 3 V J \ \,s4, c ..\\.‘ A , \ ( . • '----'t- \\ . \ VI kr.,144 \ ....., ir ..-- --x`r) ot..... Li-I , ,*.x. ,,,. ..„ 1, • , v,„,....^■■\. :-. ,-.7-- A. 1 ;° -(7.,,....___ (r" \ 1 \.. ..___,. (i. . ,„ ' ' L., �b,, ‘0..„,........„ ,.....,,, . 0.` - \''... \ . \ .‘„.. ., .,... ,, \ , 1,. .1 -,_ .,,,,,,,,,..,...,,„,,,, \. /I A ( ` ) , f k Valleyfair ■MIL Cedar Fair Entertainment Company March 25,2014 City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 Dear Shakopee City Council, Valleyfair Amusement Park is submitting a PUD Amendment to seek approval on the replacement of the main entrance Valleyfair sign built in its current location in 1992. The current sign would be replaced with an"electronic message center" formatted sign, as described in the sign ordinance. The existing sign is located at the intersection of Highway 101 and Valley Park Drive, at the main entrance to Valleyfair. This sign serves as a focal point for the park,designates the business, and serves as the icon for the main entrance gate. Valleyfair wishes to upgrade this sign to take advantage of the advancement in technology, replace old bulbs with LED lighting—providing energy savings, and also allow a platform for Park key messaging throughout the year. Examples of messaging to be executed on the LED, "electronic message center"screen is listed below. Valleyfair requests permission to change messaging a minimum of one (1)time every thirty(30) seconds. Messages would include static and dynamic formats. Static graphics would be very similar to that produced and scheduled to run on outdoor billboards throughout the Twin Cities. (Examples attached) - Current television advertisements as may run on local television media, :30 duration - Season Pass Sales, Get Your Gold Pass Before May 26 - Opening Day this Friday, May 16 - Valleyfair is now hiring for the 2014 season - The 38th Annual Corn Feast,this weekend at Valleyfair - Valleyfair announces the all-new Route 76 for 2014! - Thank you for a great season! Opening Day 2015 is just around the corner! The replacement sign would sit atop the existing supports, as portrayed in the attached picture. Valleyfair PUD Letter Page Two The new sign would be constructed as outlined below; - Permanent Valleyfair logo—3 ft high X 26 ft wide,Double-sided, with LED illuminated letters - LED illuminated electronic message center below the permanent Valleyfair logo. LED center to be double faced, 10 ft high X 26 feet wide, full color Valleyfair wished to have the sign installed by July 1, 2014. A signage company has not been selected to date on the installation. Bids have been received from Kaufman Sign Company, Time-O-Matic, and Daktronics. Valleyfair opened in 1976 and is owned and operated by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company, a publicly traded partnership that is listed for trading on The New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "FUN." In addition to Valleyfair, Cedar Fair owns and operates ten other amusement parks, three water parks, one indoor water park, and five hotels. Cedar Fair also operates the Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park in California under a management contract. Best R ds, Tom uel Director of Maintenance Valleyfair Amusement Park LI-Z -W CC LU 1 ,-- q:: .7 m3 la-CCU. Gpm w a wt�w 0 ?s } v a. i .. N =QW --Wa 04,02 0 �w-I WZ° ZN°Cw t(� ',am -,acc NX W Fz .,, 4(1 ``"'� �+ TO.Q in0< N0WU c� 1j- X Ls w YE) 1 6 I I I N I ) p a r_t t W e- M Co - a , o6 j o ej T 41/LC-1-7 T Z � J iii ai 4- a. ■ o � > U)cri Oy `� V W ■ ■ co • • � ZZ N N 7 Z V7 CO r_ \(--..c-i\\1,,. - � I N U N ` \ f I O J . = o m J r W a N N i!Q C__ vip._ 0,,,, L''. CL u, xa • cc, ma 2 NW a CO . ''''' ;. t 4„ : ::.., ID 0 p0 . i 77;41i l'" 'Ili 4 7"'l -.Y2. ,_...__,. .„ .., ....7.1,....... k 1,_1''.., ;,. I k 1 • ` N } �s ,.._ _ ail of I T , , ¢ �. $ tea. s • , Kaufman) \NAME • Valleyfair Q9-13-13 SIGN COMPANY ADDRESS Fi 2714 L 33rd SI • k'. MINNEAPOLIS.MINN 56406 "` _ ---- - ---------- ! /CITY— PH, 16 @)700-6820 FA$ 0614)798-6715 Shakopee, MN lit[MAIL-NAUfSiGN @AOLCOIA / STATE• '9 , ^ ....•• •, • e ! c • • • •__.4 -,1 1 ••,, 4 ' . , I:-'" .bra., I A Y if d b . Illt V ta i.1 .., A ''' -VO.‘4eY,'••, 1 i II- f , • ,ir - - ' ig,El ked i I ' i —''— ■ t r r Ir. - , 1 II to ., ; IN ,66, lit 6.6 • Ale66• , .., r - , tr- ■ 66 ' 4641..6 . ' ■+-, ,,,,,, , '''';',:':?'' ' . -''''" ' '-'1.' . ' '•-• ' , . DATE- 09-13-13 E- s, N JOB Valleyfair SIGN COMPANY i (Kaufman) ADDE:RESS. 2714 C 33,St MINNEAPOIJS,MINN 55406 , CITY-• PH 1€7,7TI-,6,B = • Shakopee, MN Pc):418-.715 ../ srATE . , v , ..1. . .... i I g Q 2 . _ -._ ] I Bibill awl 1 g'. 1 4 .i 4, t1 1 le 1 h I I, _ 1 ; 1 1, r .1 t"1 . it.,... i-..; .11* 1------- ::1). -I A' /...: „")d .....44 1-64 „.--,-,-, E4,/7..-:p. _. g 4,,,a-- , ..,..."--, .,.. ., NC')(1,.7.: ., r,...._—... t A 4 ,, tlil r, . _., __ 1 ., aa.. 1___ . ..... .._.......... . .. _____ ... ._ r SCOTT COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION ( �1 tt HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT •600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST •JORDAN,MN 55352-9339 `mil e t (952) 496-8346 Fax: (952) 496-8365 •www.co.scott.mn.us April 30, 2014 Alex Sharpe City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: PUD Amendment Valleyfair Dear Alex: We have reviewed the PUD Amendment and offer the following comments: ♦ The County is not opposed to Valleyfair improving their business sign. However,the County is not supportive to the motion video as proposed. CH 101 is a high speed roadway and the intersection with Valley Park can be very busy. The motion video proposed is another distraction to motorists navigating this signalized intersection. It is also unclear how the brightness of the sign will impact the visibility of the signal. ♦ Any work within the County right-of-way shall require a County permit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Craig Jenson Transportation Planner I { Government Lot 3, Section 3,Township 115,Range 22 West, Scott County,Minnesota. That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter(N1/2 of S W 1/4)of Section 3,Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 101. Lots 1,2 and 3,Block 1, Prairie House 2nd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. Sincerely, SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO.LINC. ��llf�C/JIl1JfJlJ Jl/J_JllllJ� Cam* , SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT i� X AND TITLE,INC. 1 N ;� Licensed tate of Minnesota Se- MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY RESOLUTION NO. 14-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR VALLEYFAIR! WHEREAS, Tom Suel, applicant and Valleyfair!, and Cedar Fair Entertainment Company, property owners, has made application for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the Valleyfair! Campus singage; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: See Attached Legal Description; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development Amendment were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissions of the City of Shakopee did review the amendment to the Planned Unit Development on May 8, 2014 and adopted the following findings: Criteria No. 1: Whether the proposed development is consistent in all respect with the comprehensive plan and with this section. Finding No.1: Valleyfair! has been in operation on this site since 1976, and the comprehensive plan guides the property for Entertainment Criteria No. 2: Whether the proposed development, including deviations from design standards of the underlying zones, is compatible with surrounding land uses. Finding No. 2: Valleyfair! is directly adjacent to Highway 101,which is designated as an arterial roadway. The proposed sign deviates from established zoning ordinance and may conflict with its proximity to Highway 101. The established land use of the site as an Entertainment venue will not be changed as part of this request. The existing sign deviates from the development standards on landscaping and the height/size of the sign, as well as the electronic design features. The proposed sign will not significantly increase these deviations in regards to height and sign area. Staff believes that dynamic displays directly adjacent to a 4-lane divided roadway may be a distraction to drivers and is not compatible with surrounding land uses.Animated electronic signs are not permitted at any other location in the City. Criteria No.3: Whether the proposed development, including deviations from development standards of the underlying zone, provides adequate open space, circulation, parking, recreation, screening,and landscaping. Finding No. 3: The proposed amendment does not affect the open space, circulation within the site,parking, recreation, and landscaping. The existing sign deviates from the development standards on landscaping and the height/size of the sign. Criteria No. 4: Whether the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natural terrain characteristics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. In evaluating each individual proposal,the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial. Finding No. 4: This proposal does not affect the overall density of the development of the site. Criteria No. 5: Whether there exists an overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. However,the architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. Finding No. 5: The amendment to the PUD will not alter the overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. Criteria No. 6: Whether the proposed PUD plan would afford a greater general public benefit than would be realized under the underlying zoning district and/or general zoning provisions. Finding No. 6: The amendment to the PUD will not alter the sites public benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the Planned Unit Development for ValleyFair! is hereby amended to allow an electronic message center sign with the following conditions: 1. All previous conditions of the Valleyfair! PUD and subsequent amendments remain in effect, except conditions and plans related to the existing entry sign. 2. Existing free-standing and way-finding signage will be removed from the site at the time of installation of the new signage. 3. The size and location of the electronic message center sign shall be constructed generally consistent with the submitted plans dated 09/13/13 (exhibit 4),provided the plans do not conflict with Building Code, and Fire Code regulations. 4. The electronic message center sign shall comply with City Code section 11.70 in relation to sign operation for electronic message centers. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held on the day of ,2014. Chair of the Planning Commission ATTEST: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 Kansas City MO—Worlds of Fun Amusement Park 88-445-08.A.MONUMENT SIGNS 1. All monument signs must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 2. All monument signs must be set upon a solid base of material and design compatible with that of the development.The width of the base must be a minimum of 75 percent of the width of the widest part of the sign. 3. Electronic,digital,or motorized monument signs are permitted in Districts B4, UR,D,and M,provided that the message or image does not change more than once every hour,and provided that the sign complies with the following requirements: (1) There may be no effects of movement,flashing,scintillation,or similar effects; (2) Changes of image must be instantaneous as seen by the human eye and may not use fading,rolling,window shading,dissolving,or similar effects as part of the change; (3) Electronic and digital signs must use automatic level controls to reduce light levels at night and under cloudy and other darkened conditions,in accordance with the standards set forth in this sub-section.All electronic and digital signs must have installed ambient light monitors, and must at all times allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the electronic sign based on ambient light conditions.Maximum brightness levels for electronic and digital signs may not exceed 5000 nits when measured from the signsface at its maximum brightness,during daylight hours,and 500 nits when measured from the signs face at its maximum brightness between sunset and sunrise,as those times are determined by the National Weather Service. (4) The sign must be located at least 250 feet from any residentially zoned and occupied property,and must be located on a major thoroughfare. 4. Monument signs used to identify a development district must be located on a major thoroughfare. Wisconsin Dells,WI—Several Water parks and attractions 22.285 Variable Message Sign (1)Definition.Variable Message Sign.An outdoor advertising sign,display or device using LCD,LED or plasma displays or other similar technology for the displaying of moving images,static images animation or changing the message.The display area of a variable message sign consists of that portion of the overall sign displaying these electronic images.Variable message signs include but are not limited to Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs(CEVMS),animated signs,dynamic displays and changeable copy signs. (2)Regulations.Variable Message Signs.In addition to the regulations imposed by this chapter,variable message signs are subject to the following restrictions: (a)Variable Message Signs may be used only to advertise activities conducted on the property on which the signs are located or to present public service information. (b)No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or faster than 32 columns per second. (c)No message may be displayed at intervals of less than 6 seconds. (d)No segmented or traveling message may last longer than 10 seconds. (e)Display areas may be illuminated only to a degree of brightness that is reasonably necessary for adequate visibility.The City Engineer or designee shall be responsible for determining compliance with this requirement. Signs found to be brighter than reasonably necessary shall be adjusted by the person owning or controlling the sign in accordance with the instructions of the City Engineer. (f)The brightness level of all messages must be uniform. City of Wisconsin Dells 21 Chapter 22 (g)Intervals between messages must be black. (h)Flashing,intermittent or moving light or lights are prohibited, except those giving public service information,such as time,date, temperature,weather or similar information. (i)Lights that are directed at any part of the highway or that interfere with or obscure an official traffic device,sign or signal are prohibited. (j)The maximum sign area shall be 300 square feet per facing. (k)The display area shall not exceed 50%of the total area of the sign. (3)Variable Message Signs are conditionally permitted in the commercial districts east of the Wisconsin River.The provisions of Wisconsin Dells Code Chapter 19, Article 4 Division 6(19.370-19.39)shall apply to applications for such signs. Sandusky OH—Soak City Amusement Park Note:Electronic Message center signs are allowed per Conditional Use Permit.The State of Ohio has requirements that all digital signs,or electronic message center signs have at least an 8 second hold time of a static image,and are not permitted any flashing, intermittent light,change effects,full motion video,or the appearance of movement.This information was gained by speaking with the City Planner Rebecca Corrigan,as much of the information is not available online. Charolette NC—Carowinds Amusement Park Electronic changeable face advertising and information is permitted and CHARLOTTE CODE SIGNS 13-38 shall only change once within a 24-hour period.For the purposes of Section 13.108(b)only,"electronic changeable face"shall be defined as a device or display which electronically changes the fixed display screen composed of a series of lights,including light emitting diodes(LED's), fiber optics,or other similar new technology where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately.Electronic changeable face displays and devices include computer programmable,microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays that display electronic,static images,static graphics,or static picture,with or without textual information.Electronic changeable face displays do not include animated or scrolling images,graphics,or video active images(similar to television images). Dolton Township—Kings Mills Amusement Park Note:The Township relies on the Michigan Highway Beautification Act of 1972.Due to this they do allow digital signage,however speaking with the Planner there are no signs which display movement. (2)A sign containing changing illumination shall not be erected in any area except in an incorporated city or village over 35,000 in population where the department determines it is consistent with customary usage in the area.A sign permitted under section 18(f)is not a sign containing changing illumination. (h)Those that involve motion or rotation of any part of the structure,running animation or displays,or flashing or moving lights.This subdivision does not apply to a sign or sign structure using a digital billboard with static messages or images that change if the rate of change between 2 static messages or images does not exceed more than 1 change per 8 seconds,each change is complete in 1 second or less,and the sign possesses and utilizes automatic dimming capabilities so that the maximum luminescence level is not more than 0.3 foot candles over ambient light levels measured at a distance of 150 feet for those sign faces less than or equal to 300 square feet,measured at a distance of 200 feet for those sign faces greater than 300 square feet but less than or equal to 378 square feet,measured at a distance of 250 feet for those sign faces greater than 378 square feet and less than 672 square feet,and measured at a distance of 350 feet for those sign faces equal to or greater than 672 square feet.In addition to the above requirements,signs exempted under this subdivision shall be configured to default to a static display in the event of mechanical failure. 5/14/2014 Guidance On Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs-Policy and Guidance-Outdoor Advertising Control-Practitioners-Real Estate-FHWA About Programs Resources Briefing Room Contact Search FHWA IJ© it •e Real Providing Global Leadership and Innovation in Public Sector Reat Estate and Outdoor Advertising Control through Information Sharing and Knowledge Exchange Laws, Regs and Policy Guidance Guidance On Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs Memorandum U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Subject: INFORMATION: Guidance On Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs Date: September 25, 2007 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: Gloria M. Shepherd From: Gloria M. Shepherd Reply HEPR-20 Associate Administrator for to Planning, Environment, and Realty To: Division Administrators ATTN: Division Realty Professionals Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to Division Realty Professionals concerning off- premises changeable message signs adjacent to routes subject to requirements for effective control under the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) codified at 23 U.S.C. 131. It clarifies the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) July 17, 1996, memorandum on this subject. This office may provide further guidance in the future as a result of additional information received through safety research, stakeholder input, and other sources. Pursuant to 23 CFR 750.705, a State DOT is required to obtain the FHWA Division approval of any changes to its laws, regulations, and procedures to implement the requirements of its outdoor advertising control program. A State DOT should request and the Division offices should provide a determination as to whether the State should allow off-premises changeable Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) adjacent to controlled routes, as required by our delegation of responsibilities under 23 CFR 750.705(j). The Divisions that already have formally approved CEVMS use on HBA controlled routes, as well as, those that have not yet issued a decision, should re-evaluate their position in light of the following considerations. The decision of the Division should be based upon a review and approval of a State's affirmation and policy that: (1) is consistent with the existing Federal/State Agreement (FSA) for the particular State, and (2) includes but is not limited to consideration of requirements associated with the duration of message, transition time, brightness, spacing, and location, submitted for the FHWA approval, that evidence reasonable and safe standards to regulate such signs are in place for the protection of the motoring public. Proposed laws, regulations, and procedures that would allow permitting CEVMS subject to acceptable criteria (as described below) do not violate a prohibition against "intermittent" or "flashing" or "moving" lights as those terms are used in the various FSAs that have been entered into during the 1960s and 1970s. This guidance is applicable to conforming signs, as applying updated technology to nonconforming signs would be considered a substantial change and inconsistent with the requirements of 23 CFR 750.707(d)(5). As noted below, all of the requirements in the HBA and its implementing regulations, and the specific provisions of the FSAs, continue to apply. Background The HBA requires States to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising adjacent to certain controlled http://www.fhwa.dot.g ovIreal_estate/practiti oners/oac/pol icy and guidance/offprmsgsnguid.cfm 1/3 5/14/2014 Guidance On Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs-Policy and Guidance-Outdoor Advertising Control-Practitioners-Real Estate-FHWA routes. The reasonable, orderly and effective display of outdoor advertising is permitted in zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial areas. Signs displays and devices whose size, lighting and spacing are consistent with customary use determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary, may be erected and maintained in these areas (23 U.S.C. § 131(d)). Most of these agreements between the States and the Secretary that determined the size, lighting and spacing of conforming signs were signed in the late 1960's and the early 1970's. On July 17, 1996, the Office of Real Estate Services issued a memorandum to Regional Administrators to provide guidance on off-premise changeable message signs and confirmed that the FHWA has "always applied the Federal law 23 U.S.C. 131 as it is interpreted and implemented under the Federal regulations and individual FSAs."It was expressly noted that "in the twenty-odd years since the agreements have been signed, there have been many technological changes in signs, including changes that were unforeseen at the time the agreements were executed. While most of the agreements have not changed, the changes in technology require the State and the FHWA to interpret the agreements with those changes in mind." The July 17, 1996, memorandum primarily addressed tri-vision signs, which were the leading technology at the time, but it specifically noted that changeable message signs "regardless of the type of technology used"are permitted if the interpretation of the FSA allowed them. Further advances in technology and affordability of LED and other complex electronic message signs, unanticipated at the time the FSAs were entered into, require the FHWA to confirm and expand on the principles set forth in the July 17, 1996, memorandum. The policy espoused in the July 17, 1996, memorandum was premised upon the concept that changeable messages that were fixed for a reasonable time period do not constitute a moving sign. If the State set a reasonable time period, the agreed-upon prohibition against moving sign is not violated. Electronic signs that have stationary messages for a reasonably fixed time merit the same considerations. Discussion Changeable message signs, including Digital/LED Display CEVMS, are acceptable for conforming off-premise signs, if found to be consistent with the FSA and with acceptable and approved State regulations, policies and procedures. This guidance does not prohibit States from adopting more restrictive requirements for permitting CEVMS to the extent those requirements are not inconsistent with the HBA, Federal regulations, and existing FSAs. Similarly, Divisions are not required to concur with State proposed regulations, policies, and procedures if the Division review determines, based upon all relevant information, that the proposed regulations, policies and procedures are not consistent with the FSA or do not include adequate standards to address the safety of the motoring public. If the Division Office has any question that the FSA is being fully complied with, this should be discussed with the State and a process to change the FSA may be considered and completed before such CEVMS may be allowed on HBA controlled routes. The Office of Real Estate Services is available to discuss this process with the Division, if requested. If the Division accepts the State's assertions that their FSA permits CEVMS, in reviewing State-proposed regulations, policy and procedures for acceptability, the Divisions should consider all relevant information, including, but not limited to duration of message, transition time, brightness, spacing, and location, to ensure that they are consistent with their FSA and that there are adequate standards to address safety for the motoring public. The Divisions should also confirm that the State provided for appropriate public input, consistent with applicable State law and requirements, in its interpretation of the terms of their FSA as allowing CEVMS in accordance with their proposed regulations, policies, and procedures. Based upon contacts with all Divisions, we have identified certain ranges of acceptability that have been adopted in those States that do allow CEVMS that will be useful in reviewing State proposals on this topic. Available information indicates that State regulations, policy and procedures that have been approved by the Divisions to date, contain some or all of the following standards: • Duration of Message o Duration of each display is generally between 4 and 10 seconds - 8 seconds is recommended. • Transition Time o Transition between messages is generally between 1 and 4 seconds - 1-2 seconds is recommended. • Brightness o Adjust brightness in response to changes in light levels so that the signs are not unreasonably bright for the safety of the motoring public. http.//vommfhwa.dot.govIreal estate/practitioners/oac/pol icy and_g uidance/offprmsgsng uid.cfm 2/3 5/14/2014 Guidance On Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs-Policy and Guidance-OutdoorAdrertisingControl-Practitioners-Real Estate-FHWA • Spacing o Spacing between such signs not less than minimum spacing requirements for signs under the FSA, or greater if determined appropriate to ensure the safety of the motoring public. • Locations o Locations where allowed for signs under the FSA except such locations where determined inappropriate to ensure safety of the motoring public. Other standards that the States have found helpful to ensure driver safety include a default designed to freeze a display in one still position if a malfunction occurs; a process for modifying displays and lighting levels where directed by the State DOT to assure safety of the motoring public; and requirements that a display contain static messages without movement such as animation, flashing, scrolling, intermittent or full-motion video. Conclusion This guidance is intended to provide information to assist the Divisions in evaluating proposals and to achieve national consistency given the variations in FSAs, State law, and State regulations, policies and procedures. It is not intended to amend applicable legal requirements. Divisions are strongly encouraged to work with their State in its review of their existing FSAs and, if appropriate, assist in pursuing amendments to address proposed changes relating to CEVMS or other matters. In this regard, the Office of Realty Estate Services is currently reviewing the process for amending FSAs, as established in 1980, to determine appropriate revisions to streamline requirements while continuing to ensure there is adequate opportunity for public involvement. For further information on guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs, you may contact the Office of Real Estate Services' "Point of Contact" serving your Division or the contact on this page. Privacy Policy I Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) I Accessibility I Web Policies& Notices I No Fear Act I Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse U.S. DOT Home I USA.gov I WhiteHouse.gov Federal Highway Administration 1 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE I Washington, DC 20590 1 202-366-4000 http://wrwd.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/practitioners/oat/pol icy_and9 ui dance/offprmsg sng uid.cfm 3/3 Valleyfair June 11, 2014 Shakopee City Council 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject: Resolution No 14-020 Attention:Alex Sharpe To Whom it may Concern: Please accept this letter as an attachment to our formal appeal for Resolution No 14-020.Valleyfair is requesting a change to the decision clarified in item c)of the Resolution: The electronic message center sign may not change more often than once every 1 minute. We request City Council share their opinion regarding traffic safety impacts with respect to Electronic Message Displays. Please take into account the exhibits referenced below and attached to this letter when providing the final opinion. Studies indicate that Electronic Message Displays do not pose a negative impact on traffic safety if the messages are changed at reasonable intervals.Valleyfair requests the message change frequency be allowed every 8 seconds in lieu of once every 1 minute.The memo's and study referenced below and attached to this letter provide documentation of what is deemed a reasonable interval. Please review the attached exhibits: 1. US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Memo dated September 25, 2007. This memo identifies ranges of acceptability for duration of messages between 4 and 10 seconds—8 seconds is recommended. 2. Minnesota Department of Transportation:Technical Memo No. 13-07-ENV-01 dated May 8, 2013. This memo indicates 6 seconds between displays along a 55 mph Highway is allowed. 3. US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Study titled Visual Behaviors in the Presence of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs. This study provides documentation that CEVMS do not provide more distraction than standard billboards. Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know if you have any question. Mindy Lawrence Project Superintendent Valleyfair Enclosures 3 One Valleyfair Drive Shakopee,MN 55379 ( (952)445-7600 ( valleyfaircom 1 Memorandum U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Subject: INFORMATION: Guidance on Date: September 25,2007 Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs Original signed by: In Reply Refer To: From: Gloria M. Shepherd HEPR-20 Associate Administrator for Planning,Environment, and Realty To: Division Administrators Attn: Division Realty Professionals Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to Division offices concerning off- premises changeable message signs adjacent to routes subject to requirements for effective control under the Highway Beautification Act(RBA) codified at 23 U.S.C. 131. It clarifies the application of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)July 17, 1996 memorandum on this subject. This office may provide further guidance in the future as a result of additional information received through safety research, stakeholder input, and other sources. Pursuant to 23 CFR 750,705, a State DOT is required to obtain FHWA Division approval of any changes to its laws, regulations, and procedures to implement the requirements of its outdoor advertising control program. A State DOT should request and Division offices should provide a determination as to whether the State should allow off-premises changeable electronic variable message signs(CEVMS)adjacent to controlled routes, as required by our delegation of responsibilities under 23 CFR 750.705(j). Those Divisions that already have formally approved CEVMS use on HBA controlled routes, as well as those that have not yet issued a decision,should re-evaluate their position in light of the following considerations. The decision of the Division should be based upon a review and approval of a State's affirmation and policy that: (1)is consistent with the existing Federal/State Agreement(FSA) for the particular State, and (2)includes but is not limited to consideration of requirements associated with the duration of message,transition time,brightness, spacing, and location, submitted for FHWA approval,that evidence reasonable and safe standards to regulate such signs are in place for the protection of the motoring public. Proposed laws,regulations, and procedures that would allow permitting CEVMS subject to acceptable criteria(as described below)do not violate a prohibition against"intermittent" or"flashing"or "moving"lights as those terms are used in the various FSAs that have been entered into during the 1960s and 1970s. 2 This Guidance is applicable to conforming signs, as applying updated technology to nonconforming signs would be considered a substantial change and inconsistent with the requirements of 23 CI'R 750.707(d)(5). As noted below, all of the requirements in the HBA and its implementing regulations, and the specific provisions of the FSAs, continue to apply. Background The HBA requires States to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising adjacent to certain controlled routes. The reasonable, orderly and effective display of outdoor advertising is permitted in zoned or un7oned commercial or industrial areas. Signs displays and devices whose size, lighting and spacing are consistent with customary use determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary. may be erected and maintained in these areas(23 U.S.C. § 131(d)). Most of these agreements between the States and the Secretary that determined the size, lighting and spacing of conforming signs were signed in the late 1960's and the early 1970's. On July 17, 1996,this Office issued a Memorandum to Regional Administrators to provide guidance on off-premise changeable message signs and confirmed that FHWA has"always applied the Federal law 23 U.S.C. 131 as it is interpreted and implemented under the Federal regulations and individual FederaUState agreements.". It was expressly noted that"in the twenty-odd years since the agreements have been signed, there have been many technological changes in signs, including changes that were unforeseen at the time the agreements were executed. While most of the agreements have not changed,the changes in technology require the State and FHWA to interpret the agreements with those changes in mind". The 1996 Memorandum primarily addressed tri-vision signs,which were the leading technology at the time, but it specifically noted that changeable message signs"regardless of the type of technology used"are permitted if the interpretation of the FSA allowed them. Further advances in technology and affordability of LED and other complex electronic message signs,unanticipated at the time the FSAs were entered into,require the FHWA to confirm and expand on the principles set forth in the 1996 Memorandum. The policy espoused in the 1996 Memorandum was premised upon the concept that changeable messages that were fixed for a reasonable time period do not constitute a moving sign. If the State set a reasonable time period, the agreed-upon prohibition against moving signs is not violated. Electronic signs that have stationary messages for a reasonably fixed time merit the same considerations. Discussion Changeable message signs, including Digital/LED Display CEVMS, are acceptable for conforming off-premise signs, if found to be consistent with the FSA and with acceptable and approved State regulations, policies and procedures. 3 This Guidance does not prohibit States from adopting more restrictive requirements for permitting CEVMS to the extent those requirements are not inconsistent with the HBA, Federal regulations, and existing FSAs. Similarly,Divisions are not required to concur with State proposed regulations,policies, and procedures if the Division review determines, based upon all relevant information,that the proposed regulations, policies and procedures are not consistent with the FSA or do not include adequate standards to address the safety of the motoring public. If the Division Office has any question that the FSA is being fully complied with,this should be discussed with the State and a process to change the FSA may be considered and completed before such CEVMS may be allowed on HBA controlled routes. The Office of Real Estate Services is available to discuss this process with the Division, if requested. If the Division accepts the State's assertions that their FSA permits CEVMS, in reviewing State-proposed regulations,policy and procedures for acceptability, Divisions should consider all relevant information, including but not limited to duration of message,transition time,brightness, spacing, and location, to ensure that they are consistent with their FSA and that there are adequate standards to address safety for the motoring public. Divisions should also confirm that the State provided for appropriate public input, consistent with applicable State law and requirements,in its interpretation of the terms of their FSA as allowing CEVMS in accordance with their proposed regulations, policies, and procedures. Based upon contacts with all Divisions, we have identified certain ranges of acceptability that have been adopted in those States that do allow CEVMS that will be useful in reviewing State proposals on this topic. Available information indicates that State regulations,policy and procedures that have been approved by Divisions to date, contain some or all of the following standards: • Duration of Message o Duration of each display is generally between 4 and 10 seconds—8 seconds is recommended. • Transition Time o Transition between messages is generally between 1 and 4 seconds— 1-2 seconds is recommended. • Brightness o Adjust brightness in response to changes in light levels so that the signs are not unreasonably bright for the safety of the motoring public. • Spacing o Spacing between such signs not less than minimum spacing requirements for signs under the FSA, or greater if determined appropriate to ensure the safety of the motoring public. • Locations o Locations where allowed for signs under the FSA except such locations where determined inappropriate to ensure safety of the motoring public. 4 Other standards that States have found helpful to ensure driver safety include a default designed to freeze a display in one still position if a malfunction occurs; a process for modifying displays and lighting levels where directed by the State DOT to assure safety of the motoring public;and requirements that a display contain static messages without movement such as animation, flashing, scrolling, intermittent or full-motion video. Conclusion This Memorandum is intended to provide information to assist the Divisions in evaluating proposals and to achieve national consistency given the variations in FSAs, State law, and State regulations, policies and procedures. It is not intended to amend applicable legal requirements. Divisions are strongly encouraged to work with their State in its review of their existing FSAs and, if appropriate, assist in pursuing amendments to address proposed changes relating to CEVMS or other matters. In this regard, our Office is currently reviewing the process for amending FSAs, as established in 1980, to determine appropriate revisions to streamline requirements while continuing to ensure there is adequate opportunity for public involvement. For further information,please contact your Office of Real Estate Point of Contact or Catherine O'Hara(Catherine_O'Hara @dot.gov). ONoNESpTlib MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Engineering Services Division Cc Technical Memorandum No. 13-07-ENV-01 VINN ap May 8, 2013 ct• O Ts 5 To: Electronic Distributi n ecip ents From: Jon M. Chi lo, P.E. 9 C Division Director, E ineenn Se ices Subject: Flashing and Moving Lights on Outdoor Advertising Devices Expiration This Technical Memorandum supersedes Technical Memorandum 08-07-TS-01 and will be in effect until May 8, 2018. Implementation The guidelines and instructions described in this Technical Memorandum are effective immediately for all roads in Minnesota that are on the National Highway System and all roads that were a part of the Federal Aid Primary System as it existed in 1992. Introduction This Technical Memorandum establishes a uniform policy to determine whether lighting displays of outdoor advertising devices contain flashing or moving lights. Purpose To provide District personnel charged with enforcement of MN Statute Chapter 173(Outdoor Advertising Act) (http://www.revisor.leq.state.mn.us/stats/173)with a clear guideline as to what constitutes flashing or moving lights. Guidelines This guideline is intended for evaluating all off-premise outdoor advertising devices that utilize lighting for illumination and displaying messages or pictorial images. MN Statute 173.15, (7) (http://www.revisor.leq.state.mn.us/stats/173/15.html)prohibits any outdoor advertising device"which has distracting flashing or moving lights so designed or lighted as to be a traffic hazard." Chapter 173.16, Subd 4(establishment of spacing requirements) (http://www.revisor.leq.state.mn.us/stats/173/16.html), allows motorists to be exposed to an off- premise advertising device every six seconds when traveling 55 mph(90 km/h) on trunk highways and expressways and every 5 seconds when traveling 70 mph (110 km/h)on rural interstates. This is determined by the following calculations: Outdoor advertising devices are allowed every: 500 feet(150 m) Trunk Highways&Expressways Rural Interstates Vehicle Speed 55 mph or 80.7 ft/second 70 mph or 102.7 ft/second (90 km/h or 25 m/s) (110 km/h or 30 m/s) Time between allowable display 500 ft/80.7 ft 1 second=6 seconds 500 ft/102.7 ft/second =5 seconds (150m/25 m/second=6.0 seconds) (150 m/30 m/second=5 seconds) -MORE- Technical Memorandum No. 13-07-ENV-01 Flashing and Moving Lights on Outdoor Advertising Devices May 8, 2013 Page 2 Using these calculations, a measurement can be taken for determining whether lighting display is prohibited because it is either flashing or moving. Lighting display changes that occur less than once every six seconds present motorists with more off-premise advertising displays than the MN Statute 173 allows through its spacing requirements. Lighting display changes occurring once every six seconds, or more, do not present motorists with any more of a visual display than ordinary illuminated devices. Lighting which presents a new message, pictorial image, or changes illumination at a rate less than once every six seconds is determined to be a flashing or moving light and is in violation of MN Statute 173.15, (7). Questions Any questions regarding the technical provisions of this Technical Memorandum can be addressed to the following: • Scott Robinson, State Outdoor Advertising Coordinator,at(651) 366-4671 Any questions regarding publication of this Technical Memorandum should be referred to the Design Standards Unit, DesiqnStandards.DOTstate.mn.us. A link to all active and historical Technical Memoranda can be found at http://techmemos.dot.state.mn.us/techmemo.aspx. To add, remove, or change your name on the Technical Memoranda mailing list, please visit the web page http://techmemos.dot.state.mn.us/subscribe.aspx -END- GENERAL DISCUSSION This study was conducted to investigate the effect of CEVMS on driver visual behavior in a roadway driving environment.An instrumented vehicle with an eye tracking system was used. Roads containing CEVMS, standard billboards, and control areas with no off-premise advertising were selected. The CEVMS and standard billboards were measured with respect to luminance, location,size, and other relevant variables to characterize these visual stimuli.Unlike previous studies on digital billboards,the present study examined CEVMS as deployed in two United States cities and did not contain dynamic video or other dynamic elements. The CEVMS changed content approximately every 8 to 10 seconds,consistent within the limits provided by FHWA guidance.(2)In addition,the eye tracking system used had nearly a 2-degree level of resolution that provided significantly more accuracy in determining what objects the drivers were gazing or fixating on as compared to some previous field studies examining CEVMS. CONCLUSIONS Do CEVMS attract drivers' attention away from the forward roadway and other driving relevant stimuli? Overall, the probability of looking at the road ahead was high across all conditions. In Reading, the CEVMS condition had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the standard billboard condition on the freeways. Both of the off-premise advertising conditions had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the control condition on the freeway. The lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead can be attributed to the overall distribution of gazes away from the road ahead and not just to the CEVMS. On the other hand, for the arterials the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions did not differ from each other,but both had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead compared to the control. In Richmond there were no differences among the three advertising conditions on the arterials.However, for the freeways the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions did not differ from each other but had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the control. The control conditions differed across studies. In Reading,the control condition on arterials showed 92 percent for gazing at the road ahead while on the freeway it was 86 percent. On the other hand, in Richmond the control condition for arterials was 78 percent and for the freeway it was 92 percent.The control conditions on the freeway differed across the two studies. In Reading there were businesses off to the side of the road; whereas in Richmond the sides of the road were mostly covered with trees. The control conditions on the arterials also differed across cities in that both contained businesses and on-premise advertising;however, in Reading arterials had four lanes and in Richmond arterials had six lanes.The reason for these differences across cities was that these control conditions were selected to match the other conditions (CEVMS and standard billboards)that the drivers would experience in the two respective cities.Also,the selection of DCZs was obviously constrained by what was available on the ground in these cities. The results for the off-premise advertising conditions are consistent with Lee et al.,who observed that 76 percent of drivers' time was spent looking t the road ahead in the CEVMS scenario and 75 percent in the standard billboard scenario(9)However, it should be kept in mind 53 that drivers did gaze away from the road ahead even when no off-premise advertising was present and that the presence of clutter or salient visual stimuli did not necessarily control where drivers gazed. Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety? In DCZs containing CEVMS, about 2.5 percent of the fixations were to CEVMS (about 2.4 percent to standard billboards). The results for fixations are similar to those reported in other field data collection efforts that included advertising signs.(12,11,9,13)Fixations greater than 2,000 ms were not observed for CEVMS or standards billboards. However,an analysis of dwell times to CEVMS showed a mean dwell time of 994 ms (maximum of 1,467 ms)for Reading and a mean of 1,039 ms(maximum of 2,270 ms) for Richmond. Statistical comparisons of average dwell times between CEVMS and standard billboards were not significant in Reading; however, in Richmond the average dwell times to CEVMS were significantly longer than to standard billboards,though below 2,000 ms. There was one dwell time greater than 2,000 ms to a CEVMS across the two cities. On the other hand, for standard billboards there were three long dwell times in Reading; there were no long dwell times to these billboards in Richmond. Review of the video data for these four long dwell times showed that the signs were not far from the forward view when participants were fixating. Therefore,the drivers still had access to information about what was in front of them through peripheral vision. As the analyses of gazes to the road ahead showed,drivers distributed their gazes away from the road ahead even when there were no off-premise billboards present.Also, drivers gazed and fixated on off-premise signs even though they were generally irrelevant to the driving task. However,the results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS were associated with long glances away from the road that may reflect an increase in risk. When long dwell times occurred to CEVMS or standard billboards,the road ahead was still in the driver's field of view. Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards? The drivers were generally more likely to gaze at CEVMS than at standard billboards. However, there was some variability between the two locations and between type of roadway(arterial or freeway). In Reading,the participants looked more often at CEVMS when on arterials,whereas they looked more often at standard billboards when on freeways. In Richmond,the drivers looked at CEVMS more than standard billboards no matter the type of road they were on,but as in Reading the preference for gazing at CEVMS was greater on arterials(68 percent on arterials and 55 percent on freeways). The slower speed on arterials and sign placement may present drivers with more opportunities to gaze at the signs. In Richmond,the results showed that drivers gazed more at CEVMS than standard billboards at night; however,for Reading no effect for time of day was found. CEVMS do have higher luminance and contrast than standard billboards at night. The results showed mean luminance of about 56 cd/m2 in the two cities where testing was conducted. These signs would appear clearly visible but not overly bright. 54 SUMMARY The results of these studies are consistent with a wealth of research that has been conducted on vision in natural environments.(26'22'21)In the driving environment, gaze allocation is principally controlled by the requirements of the task. Consistent results were shown for the proportion of gazes to the road ahead for off-premise advertising conditions across the two cities.Average fixations were similar to CEVMS and standard billboards with no long single fixations evident for either condition. Across the two cities,four long dwell times were observed: one to a CEVMS on a freeway in the day,two to the same standard billboard on a freeway(once at night and once in the daytime), and one to a standard billboard on an arterial at night.Examination of the scene video and eye tracking data indicated that these long dwell times occurred when the billboards were close to the forward field of view where peripheral vision could still be used to gather visual information on the forward roadway. The present data suggest that the drivers in this study directed the majority of their visual attention to areas of the roadway that were relevant to the task at hand(i.e.,the driving task). Furthermore,it is possible, and likely, that in the time that the drivers looked away from the forward roadway,they may have elected to glance at other objects in the surrounding environment(in the absence of billboards)that were not relevant to the driving task. When billboards were present,the drivers in this study sometimes looked at them, but not such that overall attention to the forward roadway decreased. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH In this study the participants drove a research vehicle with two experimenters on board. The participants were provided with audio turn-by-turn directions and consequently did not have a taxing navigation task to perform. The participants were instructed to drive as they normally would.However,the presence of researchers in the vehicle and the nature of the driving task do limit the degree to which one may generalize the current results to other driving situations. This is a general limitation of instrumented vehicle research. The two cities employed in the study appeared to follow common practices with respect to the content change frequency(every 8 to 10 seconds) and the brightness of the CEVMS. The current results would not generalize to situations where these guidelines are not being followed. Participant recruiting was done through libraries, community centers and at a university. This recruiting procedure resulted in a participant demographic distribution that may not be representative of the general driving population. The study employed a head-free eye tracking device to increase the realism of the driving situation(no head-mounted gear). However, the eye tracker had a sampling rate of 60 Hz,which made determining saccades problematic. The eye tracker and analyses software employed in this effort represents a significant improvement in technology over previous similar efforts in this area. The study focused on objects that were 1,000 feet or less from the drivers. This was dictated by the accuracy of the eye tracking system and the ability to resolve objects for data reduction. In addition,the geometry of the roadway precluded the consideration of objects at great distances. 55 RESOLUTION NO. 7468 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PC14-020. WHEREAS, Thomas Suel, on behalf of Valleyfair made application on March 27, 2014 for an Amendment to the Valleyfair Planned Unit Development to alter the existing entry sign to a new electronic message center sign; and WHEREAS,the Public Hearing on March 8, 2014 was continued to June 5, 2014 at the applicant's request; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed Valleyfair's Planned Unit Development amendment application at the Commission's June 5, 2014 meeting; and WHEREAS,the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC14-020, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development amendment subject to 4 conditions; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.90, Subdv. 2 allows for an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days of the Commission;s decision; and WHEREAS, Ms. Mindy Lawrence, on behalf of Valleyfair filed an appeal of the Commission's decision on June 5, 2014 on the basis that studies indicate the electronic message displays do not pose a negative impact on traffic safety if the messages are changed at reasonable intervals; and WHEREAS,the appeal requests that the message change frequency by allowed every 8 seconds rather than the 1 minute required by City Code; and WHEREAS,the appeal request for an 8 seconds between message change was not reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,the City Council heard the appeal at its meeting on July 15, 2014; and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed the materials related to the Planned Unit Development amendment, and the submitted exhibits. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee adopts the following findings of facts and conclusion relative to this matter: FINDINGS 1. To overturn the Planning Commission's decision the City Council must find error or omission on the part of the Planning Commission. 438274v2 JJT SH155-332 1 2. City Code required the Planning Commission to be the governing body regarding the Planned Unit Development amendment due to the proposal being less than 10%of the total site area being affected. CONCLUSIONS 1. City Council can find no fault or omissions in the Planning Commission's review 2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Resolution No. PC 14-020 is denied and that the Commission's decision is affirmed in all respects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the fmdings adopted by Planning Commission are incorporated by reference into this Resolution. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of January, 2014. Brad Tabke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Julie Linnihan, City Clerk 438274v2 JJT SH155-332 2