VII. 2. 2020-04 Electronic Signs Text Amendment Discussion
CITY OF HOPKINS
Memorandum
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Jason Lindahl, City Planner
Date: July 28, 2020
Subject: Electronic Sign Regulations
_____________________________________________________________________
Proposed Action
None – this item is for review and discussion only. During the meeting, staff will review the
attached draft sign regulations and memo from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding electronic
signs and seek feedback from the Planning & Zoning Commission about potential zoning changes.
Attachments
• Minutes from the Planning & Zoning Commission 12-17-19
• Draft Electronic Sign Regulations
• League of Minnesota Cities Memo – Regulating Dynamic Signs
Background
During the December 17, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, staff reviewed the City’s
sign regulations and ask the Commission for feedback on the City’s electronic sign regulations. In
response the Commission directed staff to conduct more research on electronic sign regulations and
bring forward potential zoning changes for further discussion. As a result, please find the attached
draft electronic sign standards and League of Minnesota Cities memo – Regulating Dynamic Signs.
During the meeting, staff will review this information and take comments and direction from the
Commission.
Previous Planning & Zoning Commission Discussion
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the City’s electronic sign standards during the
December 17, 2019 meeting (see attached minutes). During the meeting, staff reviewed the City’s
current regulations, a study from the League of Minnesota Cities, regulations from other
communities and a request to update the standards from Zion Lutheran Church. After some
discussion, the Commission provided the following feedback:
• Less than 2 minutes between message changes may be too frequent and distracting, but could be
lessened from the current 24-hour requirement.
• 30 minutes was suggested as a possible duration limit.
• Is there any input from neighbors of current properties with electronic signs? Broader
engagement from the community would be part of the process should the Council move
forward with making any changes to the standards.
• The surrounding land use pattern and type of road are important. Look into creating different
regulations based on zoning and road classification. It is important to protect residential use.
• Updating standards to include electronic dynamic sign regulations.
• Interest in more information or studies on the subject if available.
Legal Authority
Zoning Code amendments are legislative actions in that the City is creating new standards to
regulate the development of certain types of uses and/or structures. Under the law, the City has
wide flexibility to create standards that will ensure the type of development it desires; however,
zoning regulations must be reasonable and supported by a rational basis relating to promoting public
health, safety and welfare.
Electronic Sign Regulations
Electronic signs (also known as dynamic signs) include signs that appear to have movement or
change without changing or removing the signs physical components. These signs are allowed in
the Business and Institutional districts provided they do not change more than once every 24 hours.
Hopkins’ current sign regulations do not address other typical modern elements of electronic sign
regulation like text size, mode, brightness and operation.
The primary concerns with electronic signs are their potential to distract passing drivers and impact
on adjacent properties. In 2007, the League of Minnesota Cities produced a resource memo entitled
Regulating Dynamic Signs (attached) which summarized the findings of a broader research study on
dynamic signs conducted by SRF Consulting for the City of Minnetonka. That memo provides
information on the framework, tools and aspect of regulating electronic signs.
In response to the discussion and feedback from the Planning & Zoning Commission in December,
staff prepared the attached draft electronic sign standards. Staff will review this information with
the Commission and take additional feedback and comment.
Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, December 17, 2019 – Page 1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 17, 2019
A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on December 17, 2019
at 6:30 p.m. in the Raspberry Room at Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members
Gerard Balan, Samuel Stiele, Nathan White, Emily Fiamova, and Kristen Hanneman.
Commissioners Laura Daly and Elizabeth Goeman were absent. Also present was City Planner
Jason Lindahl.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Balan called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ADOPT AGENDA
Commissioner Hanneman moved, Commissioner Stiele seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion
was approved unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS – None.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Hanneman moved, Commissioner Stiele seconded, to approve the minutes of the
October 22, 2019 regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – None.
OLD BUSINESS – None.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Review Zoning Standards Related to Massage Therapy
Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that this item is for review and discussion only.
Staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and seeks further direction about
potential changes to the City’s massage therapy regulations. The key question to consider is: should
Hopkins allow independent Massage Therapy Establishments or continue the current policy, which
limits these businesses to an accessory use? Mr. Lindahl continued with background on current
message therapy regulations in Hopkins and the reason for reviewing these regulations now.
Discussion from the Commission included:
• Have the current regulations stopped any illegal activity?
• Continue to prohibit massage businesses as a home occupation
• Illegal activity can take place in many types of businesses, not just massage therapy
• The previous problem with illegal activity operating under massage therapy businesses was
solved with the 2013 ordinance. Would making changes risk these activities starting again?
Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, December 17, 2019 – Page 2
• The City should continue to protect small businesses in the downtown area by not allowing
franchises
• Allowing massage therapy as an accessory use as stated in the current ordinance is the best
compromise for massage therapists to operate in Hopkins without permitting large franchises
• Staff should research what communities similar to Hopkins have for massage therapy regulations
and report back to the Commission.
After thorough discussion, the Commission was split on the question whether Hopkins should allow
independent Massage Therapy Establishments or continue the current policy, which limits these
businesses to an accessory use. Commissioners Balan and White were supportive of changes while
Commissioner Hanneman was opposed. Commissioners Fiamova and Stiele were unsure and
requested more information. Staff will research massage standards in similar communities and
report back to the Planning & Zoning Commission at a future meeting.
2. Review Zoning Standards Related to Electronic Signs
Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that this item is for review and discussion only.
Staff received a letter from Zion Lutheran Church requesting the City consider changes to the
zoning regulations for electronic signs. Specifically, the church asked about changes regarding the
length of time currently required between message changes. The current regulations require that
message changes in electronic signs be made no more than once every 24 hours. Mr. Lindahl
presented the Commission with the background on these regulations and the variety of standards in
surrounding communities. The Council is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission on the
duration of time between message changes.
Discussion from the Commission included:
• Less than 2 minutes between message changes may be too frequent and distracting, but could be
lessened from the current 24-hour requirement
• 30 minutes was suggested as a possible duration limit
• Is there any input from neighbors of current properties with electronic signs? Broader
engagement from the community would be part of the process should the Council move
forward with making any changes to the standards
• The surrounding land use pattern and type of road are important. Look into creating different
regulations based on zoning and road classification. It is important to protect residential use
• Updating standards to include electronic dynamic sign regulations
• Interest in more information or studies on the subject if available.
After thorough discussion, the Commission was generally in favor of revisiting the electronic sign
ordinance standards related to the duration between message changes and updating the standards to
apply to current technology options.
Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, December 17, 2019 – Page 3
ANNOUNCEMENTS
During the announcements, City Planner Jason Lindahl updated the Planning & Zoning
Commission on the following items:
• Planning applications for Two Men and a Truck and Bank of America were approved by the
City Council at their November 18, 2019 meeting.
• The Beacon item from the November 4 meeting and was further discussed at the November 12
work session. The first reading of the item was approved at the December 3 meeting and the
second reading will be discussed at the December 17, 2019 meeting.
• The February 25, 2020 Planning Commission meeting is scheduled on caucus night. Although
state law only requires City Council meetings be moved for this conflict, staff suggests moving
the meeting to Monday, February 24. The Planning Commission had no objections to the
change.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Fiamova moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The
motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney Pearsall
Administrative Assistant
Draft Electronic Sign Regulations – For Discussion Only
Dynamic Signs: Dynamic signs are allowed subject to the following standards:
1. District Limitations: All dynamic signs shall comply with the zoning and road classification
standards listed below and the performance standards detailed in this section. A conditional use
permit shall be required for any dynamic signs located on a property adjacent to any residential
use or district.
a. Business, Business Park or Institutional Districts. Dynamic signs may be located on
properties within the Business, Business Park or Institutional districts, provided the property
has frontage along a principal arterial or minor reliever road as designated in the
comprehensive plan.
b. Residential Districts. Dynamic signs may be located on public and institutional uses within a
residential zone, provided the property has frontage on a principal arterial, minor reliever or
major collector road as designated in the comprehensive plan.
2. Location: The sign must be located on the site of the use identified or advertised by the sign.
3. Orientation: Electronic signs must be positioned so as to limit their impact on adjacent
residential uses. At a minimum, such signs shall be positioned perpendicular to the adjacent
public right-of-way.
4. Type of Sign: Dynamic signs are limited to ground signs only. Ground sign means any
freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as wide
as the sign and which has a total height not exceeding eight feet.
5. Text Size and Legibility: The following minimum text sizes shall apply to all dynamic signs. If
a sign is located on a corner with streets that have differing speed limits, the minimum text size
shall be based on the standard for the higher speed limit to ensure maximum legibility.
Minimum Text Sizes for Dynamic Signs
Speed Limit of Adjacent Road Minimum Text Size
25 to 34 MPH 7”
35 to 44 MPH 9”
45 to 54 MPH 12”
55 MPH or More 15”
6. Mode: Dynamic signs shall only be allowed to operate in a static mode. Animation, motion or
video displays are prohibited. Any change from one static display to another must be
instantaneous and shall not include any distracting effects, such as dissolving, spinning or fading.
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.
7. Size and Number of Dynamic Display: The dynamic portion of any sign shall not exceed
eighty (80) percent of the total allowable area of the sign. The remaining twenty (20) percent of
the allowable sign area cannot have dynamic capabilities even if it is not used. Each site can have
only one dynamic sign and that sign can have only one dynamic display.
8. Minimum Display Time: The minimum display time shall be twenty (20) minutes. One
exception to this standard would be for time, date and temperature signs which the federal court
has acknowledged as a justifiable exception to limitations on variable message signs. The time,
date and temperature information may change no faster than once every three (3) seconds,
provided that the display of this information remains for at least twenty (20) minutes before
changing to another display.
9. Brightness: Dynamic signs shall not exceed a maximum illumination of five thousand (5,000)
nits during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of five hundred (500) nits between dusk
to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. All dynamic sign applications
shall include certification from the sign's manufacturer that the sign has been preset to conform
to the luminance levels noted above and these settings are protected from end users'
manipulation by password protected software.
10. Color: Dynamic signs may use multiple colors within the display but the use of color shall not
create distraction or a hazard to the public health, safety or welfare. No portion of the display
may change in color or color intensity in any manner. Each line of text in any direction shall be
uniform in color.
11. Operation: All dynamic signs shall be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the
display if it malfunctions. The owner of a dynamic sign must immediately cease operation of
their sign when notified by the city that it fails to comply with the standards of this chapter. The
dynamic sign shall remain inoperable until such time that the owner demonstrates to the city that
the device is in satisfactory working condition and conforms to the standards of this chapter.
Appeals of the city's direction regarding the operation of a dynamic sign shall follow the appeals
process outlined in Chapter 102, Article III, Section 102-96, "Board of Appeals and
Adjustments."
12. Application to Existing Signs: The dynamic sign standards shall apply to all existing and
future dynamic signs, unless otherwise determined by the city that an existing sign qualifies as a
nonconforming use under state statute or this code. Any existing dynamic sign that cannot meet
the minimum text size as required by the speed limit must use the largest size possible for one
line of copy to fit in the available display space.
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
REGULATING DYNAMIC SIGNAGE
Executive summary
Cities have authority and responsibility to regulate dynamic signs as appropriate for each
community. There is no single correct approach to regulation. Because the regulation of signs
involves the First Amendment, courts hold sign regulations to a higher standard than most land use
regulations. Cities still have considerable discretion to regulate, as long as they do so reasonably
and without regard to sign content.
Introduction
In the fall of 2006, a number of Minnesota cities were
surprised by the appearance of large electronic billboards
akin to giant television screens. These signs are the next
generation of sign displays with the ability to feature
changing images and movement—known collectively as
dynamic signs. Attempts to regulate them resulted in
litigation in at least one community- Minnetonka. In
developing a regulatory response, Minnetonka partnered
with the League of Minnesota Cities to commission a
study, conducted by SRF Engineering, on the impact of
such dynamic signs on traffic safety. This memorandum
discusses the legal framework of regulating dynamic
signage in light of the recent litigation and study.
More Information
FindtheresultsoftheSRFConsulting
Group’sresearchondynamic
signagein:
“Dynamic”Signage:Research
RelatedtoDriverDistractionand
OrdinanceRecommendations
It’savailableintheLandUseareaof
theLeaguewebsiteat www.lmc.org.
Regulatory framework
While the federal and state government can enact and have enacted laws regulating signs, those
regulations only provide minimum standards. Courts have explicitly recognized that cities have the
ability to regulate signs, including dynamic signs, more restrictively.
There is no uniform system of regulation that cities must follow. Each community is different and
has different needs that local ordinances may reflect. Such regulations must meet the same basic
legal tests for all sign regulation.
Most city land use decisions get a very deferential standard of review known as rational basis
review. Under this level of review, city decision will be upheld if they have any rational basis.
Because sign regulations implicate free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment,
they are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. The highest level of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny,
applies when government tries to regulate based on the
content of speech. The only content-based sign regulation
that courts have upheld is treating off-premise signs
(billboards) differently than on-premise signs that advertise
the business on the same property.
More Information
Learnmoreaboutsignregulations
andfreespeechin:
SignOrdinancesandtheFirst
Amendment
It’savailableat www.lmc.org.
One distinction that may seem like it is content based, but our
federal court of appeals has said is not, is a ban on dynamic
signs with an exception for time and temperature displays.
The court held
that because of their unique nature, allowing only time and temp displays is not a prohibited
content-based regulation. It is important not to overstate this, however. Regulations that go further
and carve out a broader exception for “public information” are likely to be struck down as
impermissibly content-based.
Sign regulations that are not content based are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which tests
whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. This roughly
translates to “regulate for a good reason.” Cities should take care that the scope of the regulation is
not excessive when viewed in light of all of the regulatory objectives, and that they do not create
exceptions to the regulations that cannot be justified by reference to one or more of the city’s
articulated objectives
Big-picture regulatory tools
The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content-neutral limits or even bans
on dynamic signs for safety reasons. The studies confirm that billboards can tend to distract
drivers, dynamic features contribute to the distraction, and even short distractions can increase the
risk of accidents. This is not surprising as promotional materials put out by sign companies
themselves boast the signs’ ability to hold viewer attention as a benefit of dynamic signs.
Safety is only one concern. Cities may also regulate signs based on values, preferences, and
aesthetics. Not every sign is appropriate in every community or every neighborhood. Not every
community wishes to become Las Vegas or even downtown Minneapolis.
Cities can take a number of different macro-level approaches to regulation. Some examples
include:
1. Complete or near-complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all.
2. Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a
percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations.
3. Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in
a downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods.
4. Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for
removal of non-conforming static signs.
5. Encourage dynamic displays. Some communities like the clean, new look of dynamic signs
and encourage them to remove old blighted and poorly maintained signs.
2
Regulating sign aspects
A content-neutral regulation that regulates dynamic signage will be subject to intermediate
scrutiny, so a community must show a regulation is substantially related to a significant
government interest. In plain language, you must articulate what problem a regulation is intended
to address and how the regulation addresses it.
There are at least six aspects of dynamic signs that regulations may address:
1.Duration of messages/ speed of changeover.Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a
psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver’s
desire to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been
shown to negatively impact drivers’ tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a
lane. To address these issues, many cities have imposed minimum message durations that
might vary depending on community preference and traffic conditions.
2.Motion, animation, and video.Motion can range from simple visual effects to full realistic
video. Motion can extend the period of time a driver will keep watching a sign, increasing
distractedness. Cities may prohibit motion or limit it either to specific areas or to specific
characteristics such as a motion time frame calibrated to traffic speed.
3.Brightness.Brightness can be a safety factor, particularly at night, as sudden brightness can be
distracting or diminish night vision. A number of communities limit brightness based on time
of day and by color displayed. This can be difficult to quantify and measure.
4.Sign placement and spacing. The number of signs and their location can be a big factor in
driver awareness. A large number of signs can increase distractedness. Poorly placed signs
may block views or cause distraction in unsafe areas. Cities may impose site standards and
spacing requirements. These may present regulatory challenges as spacing may be dependent
on the actions of neighboring property owners.
6.Size of signs. Size can have impacts in several ways. Too big, and it obstructs views and
distracts. Too small, and it takes longer to read and encourages sign users to sequence
messages. Cities may limit dynamic signs or the percentage of a sign that can be dynamic.
7.Text size and legibility.Signs that are difficult to read invite increased driver focus.
Regulations can, for example, require minimum sizes based on road speed.
The specifics of how to regulate each of these aspects is up to each community. Because review of
regulations must face intermediate scrutiny, cities have to take some extra steps when drafting and
adopting ordinances.
For each aspect regulated, cities should consider adopting findings or local studies that articulate
the reason and any support for the regulation. The SRF study and other materials can provide a
scientific basis for a number of regulatory steps. In addition, cities may choose more stringent
regulation in order to take a conservative approach to protecting safety.
3
Moving forward
It is recommended that cities think about dynamic signs as
early as possible. Regardless of your city’s approach, it is
better to make a rational choice rather than by having
dynamic signs arrive before you have thought about the
issue. Once the signs are up, Minnesota’s nonconforming use
law arguably grants them “grandfathered” status, with a
narrow exception for safety.
4
If your city would like more information about regulating
dynamic signs, Paul Merwin, LMCIT Senior Land Use Attorney, can provide assistance and refer
you to more information and resources. Contact Paul at (651) 281-1278 or pmerwin@lmc.org.
Sample Ordinance
Viewasamplesignordinancefrom
thecityofHopkinsintheLandUse
areaoftheLeaguewebsiteat
www.lmc.org.
Disclaimer:This memorandum is intended as general information only and should not be read as
legal advice or as creating an attorney-client relationship. This memo addresses general concerns
and has not been reviewed in the context of a specific client or situation. This memo was drafted as
a loss control document and is intended to avoid conflicts rather than form an opinion as to the
legality or defensibility of any action.
Paul Merwin 07/07