Loading...
07-9891r RESOLUTION NO. 9891 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT, MODIFICATION OR IMPROVEMENT OF STATIC OR CHANGING ELECTRONIC, DIGITAL, VIDEO, DISPLAY SIGNS OR BILLBOARDS, AND FLASHING, MOTION, ANIMATED, CHANGEABLE COpy AND ILLUMINATED SIGNS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield regulates signs in all zoning districts; WHEREAS, Section 416.01, subdivision 13, of the Richfield City Code defines FLASHING, TRAVELING OR CHANGING MESSAGE SIGN as any sign with an intermittent or flashing light source; WHEREAS, Section 416.07, subdivision 1, prohibits signs in all zoning districts of the City that are located, designed or maintained in a manner which are likely to cause confusion or interfere with the visibility of traffic signs, traffic control devices, crossroads, driveways or crosswalks; WHEREAS, Section 416.01, subdivision 13, of the Richfield City Code prohibits flashing, traveling or changing message signs, except those that provide public service information including time, date, temperature, weather and public events; WHEREAS, representatives of the sign industry have issued press releases indicating the intention to deploy digital billboard networks in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and their surrounding ring suburbs; WHEREAS, these digital billboards have been observed by the Richfield Zoning Administrator, and the electronic, digital, video, display signs, billboards and billboard networks were determined to fall within the City ordinance definitions for flashing, traveling or changing message signs; WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has several existing billboards and pylon signs along major public roadways within its corporate boundaries that currently do not have electronic, digital, video, display signs, billboards and billboard network displays; WHEREAS, the City of Richfield regulates signs and displays on signs in order to reduce potential traffic safety hazards and visual blight. A major study on electronic signs prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) found that "motion or the illusion of motion of lights or other display features, including animation, has "the greatest potential for motorist distraction as well as a dominant visual impact on the aesthetic environment". (FHA Report, Part VI, Section L.) The FHA study also found that control of the message interval and message cycle as well as appearance of flashing must be regulated to prevent contributing to traffic hazards. (FHA Report, Part VI, Sections G-J.) Signs, including changing image signs, that display graphics that are animated, or portray motion, or display rapidly moving messages may contribute to traffic safety hazards and lor have adverse aesthetic impacts on the visual environment; WHEREAS, there is a need to conduct a study so that the City of Richfield can consider possible amendments to its sign ordinance and zoning regulations pertaining to electronic, digital, video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs; WHEREAS, there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the welfare of the citizens of the City until such a study has been completed. There is a need to restrict certain signage until the study has been completed and any modifications to the City's sign ordinances and zoning regulations are accomplished; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subdivision 4, permits the adoption of interim zoning ordinances during the planning process. NOW THEREFORE! BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The City of Richfield Staff are directed to undertake a study regarding electronic, digital, and video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs. The scope of the study should include review of regional and national studies, local research, ordinances in other jurisdictions, review of relevant studies and a legal analysis of applicable case law, sign display operational literature, existing electronic signs and other factual and quantifiable information. 2. Upon completion of the study, the matter is to be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. 3. A moratorium is hereby adopted on the installation, erection, or construction of any new sign or the alteration, modification or replacement of any existing sign, so that the new or existing sign (as altered or modified) uses static or changing electronic, digital, or video display or flashing, motion, animated, or changeable copy. The moratorium applies in all Zoning Districts. The moratorium does not apply to repair or replacement of either an existing legal sign or an existing legal nonconforming sign that has been damaged by less than 50 percent of its market value (using the replacement cost approach to value), as determined by the building official, provided that the repair or replacement only restores the damaged sign to the same condition and method of construction and operation that existed. prior to the damage. 4. The moratorium is adopted pending completion of the study authorized by this resolution and the adoption of any amendments to the City's sign ordinance or Zoning Ordinance. No sign alteration shall be completed without a permit, and no sign permit may be issued for any sign within the scope of this moratorium. . 5. Unless earlier repealed by the City Council, the moratorium established under this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year after its effective date. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable time. by ordinance, as permitted by law, as may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's sign or zoning ordinances. 6. This resolution is effective upon adoption. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of January, 2007. f)~ aN Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: v Nancy Gibb , City Clerk