05/16/2006 - Window Sign Task ForceAGENDA
EAGAN WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE
EAGAN ROOM AT EAGAN CITY HALL
TUESDAY, MAY 169 2006
4:00 P.M.
L WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER
II. NOTES FROM MAY 2, 2006 MEETING
III. RESOLUTION OF REMAINING ISSUES
IV. COMMUNICATION OF TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS/AMENDED WINDOW SIGN
CODE
V. INFORMATION AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE MEETINGS — If necessary
VI. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE — If necessary
VH. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a
notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. Please contact
City Administration at 651-675-5001 with requests.
Ashb,'-
'r
City of Evan ga
TO: EAGAN WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE MEMBERS
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 11, 2006
SUBJECT: WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE MEETING OF MAY 16, 2006
The next meeting of the Eagan Window Sign Task Force will be at 4:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 in the Eagan Room at Eagan City Hall. Please note the
earlier starting time. The following items are in order for consideration at that
time.
Review of Notes of May 2. 2006 Meeting
Please review the May 2 meeting notes and let us know if you have any changes.
Resolution of Remainina Issues
At the May 2 meeting, a consensus was reached on the following
recommendations:
• Removal of 4-6' clear zone restriction — It was concluded that visibility into
and out of businesses could be addressed through the percentage coverage
without a 4-6' clear zone.
• Up to 60% window coverage — The group concluded compromising at 60%
would balance the needs expressed by the participants.
• Window signs defined as either applied to the inside surface of a window or
within a certain distance of the window surface — The group concluded that a
sign on the window or placed inside the business, but clearly visible through
the window, would meet the definition of a sign (The observation was that it
looks, sounds and walks like a duck.) . Further clarification of the distance
behind the window surface is addressed below.
• Grandfathering — While not a point of specific consensus to date, the
business representatives have asked that current signs be grandfathered in
some way and the Council representatives have indicated that they are open
to the concept. Further clarification of this matter is addressed below.
Issues requiring clarification:
• Distance between window surface and sign — Conversations revolved
around a specific measurement versus the concept of being able to walk
between the window and a display. The standard fire code requirement for
a walking aisle is 36". Other codes use various measurements of 18" or
more. It will be necessary to clarify the Task Force intent regarding the
definition between 18" and 36".
Method of measurement — Questions were raised about the current methods
of measurement — in particular the concept of a shape enclosed by no more
than 12 sides. This standard actually permits a larger sign than would a
length times height standard and staff and the sign companies are able to
help with computations. Since the standard is already in use for building,
monument and pylon signs, it would be more consistent to treat all signs the
same. In addition, since the task force is moving toward the 60% coverage
standard, there will likely be many fewer signs that would require the more
detailed calculations to show that they meet the standard. Unless the Task
Force were to reach a different conclusion, staff would recommend that the
approach to measurement used for other signs apply to window signs as
well.
Whether area of window signage will count toward the 20% maximum
signage permitted on a building side — One of the original reasons the
Council noted for considering window sign regulations was that the
permitted signage on the side of a building is 20% and some businesses use
both large building signs and a substantial amount of window signage, such
that the total signage for the business exceeds 20% of a building side. The
Task Force should clarify whether a business could have a building sign of
up to 20% of the overall surface of the building side, plus window signage for
an additional 60% of the window surface or a combination of window
signage and wall signage up to 20% of the overall surface of the building
side.
Issues to be resolved:
• Permit v. Case by Case Enforcement — Mary Granley's memo overviews the
issues related to enforcement either through a permit or on a case by case
basis. The Task Force conclusions on 'this topic will relate closely to the
issue of grandfathering discussed above and noted below. The basic issue
will be how to establish the baseline for conforming and non -conforming
signs and the triggering mechanism by which non -conforming signs would
need to come into conformance.
• Grandfathering — While it would permit existing signs to remain for a period
of time, the concept of grandfathering in land use assumes that at a certain
time or upon a certain event, a property will come into conformance with a
code enacted since the sign was installed. To resolve the means of
accomplishing grandfathering of signs, it will be necessary to address not
only permitting versus case by case enforcement, but the following issues as
well:
• Condition of Signs — A general expectation would be that a sign would
need to come into conformance at such time as business decisions or
the condition of the sign require it to be changed. The City Code
requires exterior signs to be maintained in good condition. Should the
same standard be applied to window signs?
• Fixed Timeline for Compliance — An alternative to the maintenance
standard would be to set a timeline by which all non -conforming signs
would need to come into compliance. This could be a longer or shorter
timeline, but would not require an interpretation of whether the sign is in
good condition.
• Temporary v. Relatively Permanent Signs — Signs range from temporary
(changed regularly with updated messages or specials) to quasi -
permanent signs (painted on the inside surface of the window) to almost
permanent signs (professionally applied appliques and similar finishes).
The Task Force should discuss how the approach to each of those
situations may differ.
• Changing a Portion of a Non -Conforming Sign — If the overall window
signage of a non -conforming window sign is made up of a combination of
relatively permanent signs (professional appliques) and temporary signs
(hanging placards or product signs), it will be necessary to make
conclusions with respect to the extent of change that could occur before
the entire window sign combination is brought into conformance.
• Other issues of implementation or enforcement — The staff notes indicate
that the issues above were those discussed and outstanding pertaining to
window signs. If Task Force members have additional items relative to the
topic that have not been addressed, it would be in order to raise them at this
time.
Communication of Task Force Conclusions/Amended Window Sign Code
Upon completion of the Task Force's work, its conclusions will be compiled in a
memo, with the meeting notes as an attachment, for presentation to the full City
Council. If the Council concurs that amendments to the window sign code should
be considered, they will direct the changes to the Advisory Planning Commission
for consideration at a public hearing before the Commission. This is necessary
because the sign code is a part of the zoning code, which can only be amended
following such a hearing before the APC.
The Commission in turn will make a recommendation back to the City Council on
the proposed amendment and, ultimately, the Council will act to adopt the
amendment. Once it is published, City staff will need to begin the information and
implementation process for the revised code.
In 2005, the City used a variety of tools to communicate the potential changes to
the community at large and the business community. When businesses came
forward this winter regarding the changes, one of the questions was how best to
communicate any additional changes, moving forward.
The following communication tools were used in 2005:
• Chamber of Commerce Weekly Email Updates
• Eagan Business Council Meetings
• Mayor's Breakfast
• Eagan Business News Newsletter
• City Newsletter
• City Website
• Direct mailings to businesses that had been the subject of enforcement
actions in the past
• Press Release — Stories were published in the Eagan Sun Current and
Pioneer Press
• Planning Commission Workshops and Regular Meetings
• Conversations with Businesses
It will be important to define which of these resources should be used again, which
may not be effective and what resources may be added that were not used at that
time. The Task Force will be invited to discuss this item as part of its conclusions
as well.
Future Meeting Schedule and Tonics — If Necessary
The group indicated a desire to wrap up its work at this meeting if possible. If it is
necessary to schedule a future meeting to address any outstanding issues related
to the task force's work, it would be appropriate to do so at this time.
As always, if you have any questions regarding the task force meeting or
background, please contact City Planner Mike Ridley or me.
Community Development Director
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 2, 2006
In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Ruthe Batulis, Jack Johnson,
Dave Perrier, John Curlee, . Buzz Anderson, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City
Administrator Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, City Planner
Ridley, and Senior Code Enforcement Technician Mary Granley. Audience members
represented Cliff Road Holiday and Davanni's.
Jon Hohenstein opened the meeting by providing a summary of events to date and
stated at the conclusion of this Task Force process, he would like to have a discussion
with the group about how to communicate the outcome of this exercise as well as other
potential ordinances that may affect local business. He concluded'by introducing the
City's Senior Code Enforcement Technician, Mary Granley, who was 'in -.attendance for
purposes of resource for application and interpretation of -City Codes.
➢ Mike Maguire stated that he saw the central issues as, 1) the need for a simple
ordinance focused on percentage; 2) further d`is'cussion necessary to address
grandfathering and permitting., and 3) in the area of percentage, suggested that
50% is as low as he is interested i:n going. He questioned City Planner Ridley
about the range of percentages in the matrix of cities contacted.
➢ Mike Ridley stated percentages ranged from 20-50%. Mike Maguire then
commented that he understood the `different needs for window signage based on
different business types.
➢ Buzz Anderson asked, "How do you differentiate between the businesses"?
➢ Mike Magq:ire stated that unless the City has an ordinance that differentiates
(which would-be extremely burdensome and unmanageable), he was hoping for
a solution that vvou' ;d, be manageable for most and cumbersome for few.
➢ Wes,..: present in the `audience and representing the Cliff Road Holiday store,
asked .,about signage that was placed back from any wall. Mike Maguire
commented`that he is not concerned with product placement.
➢ John Curlee declared, "Starting at 50% is a good start; what do you think?" He
asked Jack Johnson to comment. Jack commented that there are subsets like
liquor and convenience gas that would like 100%, but realizes it must be
negotiated.
➢ Buzz Anderson said that convenience gas is already regulated by State
standards requiring visibility from the cashier to the pumps to avoid drive -offs,
etc. As such, he doesn't believe the public safety argument for regulating
window signage is legitimate.
➢ Mike Maguire stated that he disagrees with the premise of that argument and that
seeing the pumps is different than seeing what may or may not be coming out
the door.
➢ Jon Hohenstein commented that the group was replowing old ground and that in
order to stay on task and on time, the discussion should center on the
percentage offered.
➢ John Curlee again asked what the group's thoughts were.
➢ Cyndee Fields stated that she would not exceed: fi5%;. Gary Hansen stated he
would support a 50% maximum; Ted Gladhill stated that he;d.idn't see any reason
to deviate from the peer group of cities that. were. reviewed for standards and
believes that 25% is reasonable.
➢ Buzz Anderson asked why it matters What other cities do. `Mike Maguire
commented that the City always checks, with.'other cities when looking to
amend/create City Codes if for no other reason than for the purpose of
determining reasonableness.
➢ Jon Hohenstein commented thatreviewing what other cities do with their Codes
is the best practice the City has consistently utilized. John Curlee stated that he
doesn't belittle that best practice, but stated that we shouldn't blindly follow a
precedent set by others and that it should be thought through and carefully
considered.
➢ There was general.discwssion about the percentage of businesses that presently
exceed 50%; the assumption of the .group was that probably 80% would meet
50% ,or less, and perhaps, 20% of existing businesses currently exceed 50%.
➢ Wes, representing .Holiday on, Cliff Road, stated that if the ordinance doesn't
apply to signage not, on the window, he is okay with whatever percentage the
group. comes up with because his banners hang on rods approximately 20" back
from the window.
➢ Mike Maguire stated he is concerned by banners hung to be visible for the
outside, and that he would consider that window signage.
➢ Jon Hohenstein suggested shifting in gear to review Mary Granley's memo for
definition of window signage.
➢ Buzz Anderson asked what Dave. Perrier's coverage was and asked if his doors
are covered. Dave guessed his percentage coverage is about 70% and his
doors are generally free of signage.
2
➢ Holiday's representative said that convenience stores are actually moving away
from a lot of signage and in response to Mike Maguire's question stated he is
probably at or maybe a little below 50% today. John Curlee stated that if there
are banners hanging to be visible from outside, that would be considered
signage.
➢ Dave Perrier asked a question about "display vs signage" and went on to" say
that no one from the public has approached him to thank him for participating in
this window sign task force.
➢ Mike Maguire talked about the potential of surveying, the public to get other
opinions about window signage in the City, but.:he do:esn't know what that will
accomplish and would prefer to work through , this process that has already
begun.
➢ Cyndee Fields stated that she does hear complaints and random ;comments from
people (not in writing, but at different events,) about the amount .of ,signage in
town.
➢ An audience member from D`avanni's suggested :that it shouldn't be considered
signage if you can walk in front of ;it. Mike Maguire liked that idea as a way to
define product placement/display.vs signage.
➢ John Curlee asked.,again what percentage the group can live with, specifically
asking Dave Perrier. Perrier stated'70%.
➢ Mike Maguire asked ho`w, the APC came up with 25%. Gary Hansen explained
there was a range of opinions of Planning Commission members and that
number..shifted during. annus discussions, but ultimately through background
information, public testimony and hearings, the commission landed on 25% as
reasonable amount, given the "industry standards" established in surrounding
communities.
➢ Ruthe ..Batulis added that she has anecdotal evidence that because Burnsville
has a Z5%, standard,,' there are businesses looking to leave Burnsville and come
to Eagan to get away from that signage limit.
➢ John Curlee asked, "Is this a consensus attempt or should the group be making
motions?" Cyndee Fields stated that the group should arrive at a
recommendation and to get as close as possible to a consensus would be good.
Mike Maguire agreed.
➢ John Curlee made a motion to set the percentage of window signage at 70%;
Ruthe Batulis seconded that motion.
3
➢ Buzz Anderson stated that he expects to see a high percentage, if not all
windows at a liquor store, covered in signs. He also commented that the little
guy (small business) needs to advertise that way to get people in the door.
➢ John Curlee stated that he doesn't believe every business will suddenly put up a
lot of signage based on a new percentage allowed.
➢ Jon Hohenstein commented on the set-up of the task force in that there is no
Chair and that the hopeful outcome was consensus.
➢ Wes, representing Cliff Road Holiday, stated he was optimistic that 70% would
work for all convenience store operators in town. .
➢ Mike Maguire stated that it would be -important to hear, from Planning
Commission members and that he understood the varying ''needs between
businesses, but felt 70% is very high. ,He countered that he wou:Id upport 60%
coverage.
➢ Cyndee Fields commented that the group needs to keep in mind that whatever
the Task Force arrives at must. be able to be sold to the rest of the City Council
and that she is more comfortable with 60%.
➢ John Curlee commented that he was throwing out the. 70% figure to get the ball
rolling and asked an audience attendee representing Davanni's what percentage
of window signage: Dava.nni's currently has. She commented that it is most likely
under 60%, but' they have an etched logo in the door that would need to be
considered...:
➢ Mike Maguire proposed 60% .as the. level of signage and commented that that
exceeds. the` percentage. allowed in other cities surveyed and he assumes that
those cities have liquor stores as well. Mike went on to share his experience as
signage not being. the driving, force; in fact, he stated that when he is going to the
liquor, store, he knows he is going to buy beer (for example), and it is not the
signage -that gets him in the store because he has already made the decision to
go to the Liquor store: However, once he is inside the store, then he compares
prices of sale items :and makes a decision on what to purchase.
➢ Ted Gladhill asked if there is anything more than anecdotal information on the
impact on sales that can be attributed to window signage?
➢ John Curlee asked the group what percentage they could live with and got the
following responses:
❑ Buzz Anderson --would like it as high as possible, but could live with 60%.
❑ Cyndee Fields --60%
❑ Gary Hansen --would comprise and go with 60%
0
❑
Ted Gladhill-- 25%
❑
Jack Johnson --60%
❑
Dave Perrier--> 60%
❑
Ruth Batulis--60%
➢ John Curlee summarized by saying that while 60% is the predominant
percentage acceptable, there are still issues to be worked out regarding how it is
measured, grandfathering, permits, and how to deal with certain types of signage
like etched glass, applied "see-through" logos, etc.
➢ Jon Hohenstein summarized for the group to make sure.that staff understood the
direction as follows: 1) future discussion on permits,, 2) grandfathering; 3)
determination on etched glass signage, etc..; 4) 60% maximum window sign
coverage; and 5) signage vs display would k e" determined' by distance from the
window, i.e. that if a person can walk between `the window and the display, it
would not constitute signage. The group agreed with those perimeters.
Cyndee Fields suggested that the group meet again on ,May,,16th and asked if a 4:00
start is possible. The group agreed to a 4:00 starting :t rpe on Tuesday, May 16th.
Mike Maguire thanked everyone and said he appreciates the discussion and willingness
to participate in this "give and take" process. Fields concurred:
CD/Jan Hohenstein/SignagelMeeting Notes/Meeting of 5-2-06
5
C.0
0
0
N
L
U
m
(n
C
a)
E
N
W
w a.
0 U
a) (D
0 0
c
rn
M
3
O
c
T
Y
U
w
o
—
rn L CD O co
0_00
y
O A
e0E of t0
c O
V
0
O = •y
O
O •c r tLa
U) N
w
t 0 0
_ 'O O
�_
0 O
I- Z
O1
L
y
Otm
O y
Q• y O c
IM CL
m 2
N �
.0
55o
y
'a O
3«s
•C
— R
itst
•p L y
c
L�
'0
0'5-0
y
v ea
N.0
o
E-
�-
t0
_+ O
=
c U
a) Y O
O O= O CO
c 0 c ..'
c
c O
CLO ca
•a e O
cm
L 3
O o
y E Cm 0
10 y
L C Q1
O O O E
N
= w
O •G
C
L
M ,,. CM —
'y
= 0 A
-0 CM
O
C Q. •a
oo00�
00
3y3m
N
C,o'0
O u
x
c
c'W
oxoom
as 'a O.
o
ccc
+O+
0o°mo
N L p�
N cc
=
rn- O 0 Co T
c
.y
co
��
'a — 'C
)
y— e0
— E
t0 •
i
0 m c
O
O z "0 c O
cst
C y N
.cr00m
N 'o
=
W=any
0 i �' r O
V
O= y
=
"4'' 0
o y*j
0 0 .-
==
eLO � 10 •y C
•N �
3: d
0 0%-
y v
C 10 y •C
o
y
o�
0 p�
_ ` a, 0
m0
0 0
++ O r -0 3
V �..
_`oma
'3 CL=
= 3
y y y O
O y c O
c 0
AO's
N m
A L L
o
a
c
cc
tm
cc
W
0
—
rn L CD O co
0_00
20
CD o
m (Q
N
CO
m :
o E
00
0" E
O
t 0 0
U c N
O j
CU
Nc_�
fA O O
N �
E
55o
�o rn 4)
cCoo
-0 -0
a) U _
i E
0'5-0
�a
N
o
co 0
E-
�-
3�,
O 0_
0 0
0 �.N X
o
c U
a) Y O
O O= O CO
O
O
c -0N—
co
cm
U O m m ._
Q. �
c 0 0
X (D O c a)
CO y
C a) Y
w�
a, X a) 72
O E
-0 .- tmi 0
cc U O
C m—
0 En
m C >, L O
N
0)'6 -
O— C O p a
m�
`1
N
CL
m Y
r N
O
N L p�
C
Coco
•�
rn- O 0 Co T
c
m
C O
w
,�
O O O
c—
y-0 m
(
O
N N O
o
Np
a) 4--
- O
C .�
O N m
c" cu c0 cu 3:
N N
a 0)o
O;
3 av,
3 Ut
�° =E.nE,
2
-°c`m
m X�
N O ,c a)
�, `
0
c� m
x'30
I
I
O
z
c!
0
c
E
0
0
Fn
0_00
m
Y
m (Q
LO
E
m :
o E
00
0" E
O
o
°�>0a)
c 3
o (D
Nc_�
-0 m
E,O��
3
E
E
vi
2 E
c
E m
U U
U en
� � 3
0'5-0
C -0
rn 4)
N
o
c (Da
O. O
�o
ai3o
O
U .0 O 'c
T
CL
m E a a)
C a) X
Q Y
m to 3 0
c!
0
c
E
0
0
Fn
m
O
C)
N
L
L)
N
2-1
+N+
c
a)
E
a)
co
a)_
UU
U
CD4) (D
m o
C
rn
U)
O
a
C
E
R
N
a
E
E ,4
0
L
0
>
XCD
O
p
C
+cN-
N
m
a)
cc
t
O
vi
a)
O
0
c
O
a)
a)
N
3 U T
O
a 0
a) N
2
N
+�+
rn 0 p ci Q
0
0
0
L
`C U
Co c
c
O X
> a) io cm E
t
O
O N
.3
O
C
C N r •` � O
4
N
ap
OCL
00
o a� a
a
>_ as
o
C
0 o ai
Cw
O N a) -a�
a.� a
O
o
o
c
a
c
cu
to co °�
p N
m E a Z5
N E -Oa E.5E
Lo
a)
aa)i
0
U
N C Q
Q O
.p 3
0)` C D
0)` 0 O N X
N
+L.:
a3
m' a) m
og
n
c cL E
c_. o�� C m
a
�
4-
U
0 C)
a)
c
.� C
a
.� O
a a) N
EO +..
4-7
O
O
30
m
N
�. c
C C
n 3
Q
7 ,C 0 0
c 3
� �
o\
�.
�
p,'�
0
cn o
0
a) Q)
-
E
,� m
N
LD T
N c6
o a
M C
c
a.-
E '3 o a)
>
a) o
.
0 �+
� Q o
ca .- a. a)
CL = c a)
a
a Q
a 3
Y
v;
a
L U Q
a) T
-_ Q
O
.2 00
0 0
O N C U >i
a) � ' co O
a)
a)
a) cn
a)
N
a) a)
O
a)
a co
0 O p CoL
a5 U
0 X Q
a) E
O X N Q c
a)
X a)
X a)
X
U N
0
U a) o
C U
a) 0
a)
N N a) C
a)
a)
cu
a) O
O
C
0 O
a-
a)
cD a a)
c m .N .q N t
c rn'
c
c N
m
) '0
M (uc
ca
rn cn
C
t rn m 3
C 0
- cn
'L
- w
-�
U
r-
N
(0 a) N
cn 5 0 0
p c
a3 U
C
O
a)
+� ca 0
00 Q N
+� �, 0
o� a m c\
ns
N a)
m
N U
m
to N
0
a)
(6 C
N a
v
rnc-
mac°
N
c cilr 0
c c
a�
a� 3.�3N,
ct
c 3
c�
c
c�
rn N U
`C
rn m•C
m
(�6 L N 0
m t c Cl) (�d�
L V'.
0
0) O
mo
.�"p
-
'533
0�0
oa�c��-O
33
36
o cuiN
33cn
00.000
:aa3
a�acaQ0,
o m
3�
o0
3°�3c3
oro
0 E
a te- cn
N a3
N
(0
a a>
a a
C
N N .�
NNE 3 E a)
L 0
a
a s
a
a
a
'C
Qi
'C ''C
> j
C
a)
.0
7 L
U) 0 Q }'
7 .0
U) 0 d M Q Ni
' ca
3
' 0'
�'
'C a)
CL
!
i
'« ,�
O O to
vi
j
c a)
.r cn
a)+)o
�,
�
�
�3
0�
�
`0 H C
O�
f
I
�
> U
a)w �a
ij
j
a
c a)
E
a 0 V
L
C
I
N 7
0
',.
7
0 3 Q
I
C
a) rn m N
o
c
o c
3 c
I
c O a
'rn
f I
o 0
cu
C C
O
-0
f
I
ca
p C
o c
a)
0
X
C
m
0
C
O
O i
O
`' c0
a
O L
0 0
C a 3 U
+'
p
c
c I I
c;
O
v) �n
C
O L
c
rn'm N
E
c
w i
CD N
m
:�
o
a
0 0 a)
3 3 a
L
N
U
`�
U
�= I
Ui
`�
C 0
a)
X_
Q
U_
0 O 0 0
N
N
N I I
N j
c
co a
c6
N
c .�
N
CL
cQq
a) I
uai
E
N
rn
Ca -
N
3 .3 o
O
O
O;
N p
N N 0
0
Q m m c
.rn
v)
Z
Z
Z
d
Q rn O
Z
L
mnCD
0-
f
0 4
cl)
O
CL
LCL YFYFYF}
Sni
E
p
a)
(" `
>
N
m
U
3
W[
W ?
LL
J
N
cm
C)
O
N
L
U
m
C
a)
aEi
m
Of co
a)
o U
U
a) a�
ca m
C
m
J
9
mT
N
Nm
VO
(U O
4--:
r
w
0
m ca.
CO) y-
�o N
ui
m
= O
U C
C
CL
3
c 0
D `) 0
a
N"
o
2
N
N 0
` N
-D
E
fY0 O
C-0
C O O O
C
m 3
a)
x
U O
o.0
o�
cw
a
�
a� -0
c o
m `
> cd m—
c m
3
3 O
O
s
w e- Z
c
3 E
a)
CD
O
O N
O a) L O
C L.`
C C)
w
C U
a O C N
T O -a
C
CU
O
cu
•C m
3> 3 �+
0
C -0 ca --
O C.
C
O a)
C `m S.
0o�a)�
3
3
rn-o-ca,c_�ao
Ul
o�
c o
3
c�
rn.5-cL
0 CD
O U
C
m
p O
�' L 0 7+
Ty N
paw—
D
T
m m
E
fir-
m
U
0 s m O
L
�c°mE
(D
a)
C
o�
w CL
co C
aQ-3
0�3QmE
a) O
C c N
Q
CO _Y)
O
U)
c N
F
O •C a) m-0
rn m m;
co
o
c m 3
m
E N C O
'�
a) cr
>• �) �'
fo
m
N
3 •�
N
E c
CL
m-0
C
m
-a m
m C_
c.NL � m
'E
O
`
L n
O
c
E
c
C m
o 6
CD
L o 0
WO
Z
H
.:
cn m
z0mol-
Q
C
O
C
a)
U
U
a)
Q
N
O
z
75
m
c
.r
O
3
M
N
C)
M �`+
4--:
a)
�o N
ui
O m
C C
U)
U C
-CL
a
r m
a) C
E
- co
ai
�
N
m
-0 O
C
O
C 0
O
a)
m
Q C
X
4-- m
N m
O
O
00 ca
0 o
c
3 E
a)
CD
O
(
m6 a) cm N
O
3 Nm
.0
"O
C m
o
C
m
CO
��
C
CU
co
3��
.2)—
CA 0
a) O
w
E
co
o
3
c a)
X N
3
c c CD
'a m
Ul
a) w0-
CO
.L
3
C 0
3 N O
Q
30 N
M
�
U
m 3
0-a)
4- a� 0
m
o a)
aD m
o m
a)
a C m
�.�
o
(D
x'33
r- o ami
o�
�a 3
m3
aQ-3
C L C
a)
co O
E O
'O
L
O +O 7
C aa)) o
aa)i 3
L .L
N C
cm
o
c m 3
o `�
� `0
a) cr
>• �) �'
cn �a
m 0
00 c
cm
a) .�
O
a) N E c'.
mc�3CL�flL
CO)m}'
-0 a)
oCU
c.)
m2Zd
cn m
z0mol-
N w
+�
�-
O�
a) m
2 0 c c
C
O
C
a)
U
U
a)
Q
N
O
z
75
m
c
.r
O
3
M
Abblk-
'T'
City of Evan Nemo
To: Mike Ridley, City Planner
Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director
From: Mary Granley, Senior Code Enforcement Technician
Date: April 28, 2006
Subject: Issues with Implementation and Enforcement of Window Signage
As with any new Code adoption, the devil is in the details when it comes to application.
The following points hopefully will help frame interpretation and enforcement.
Permit Application Issues
We understand the need for the ordinance and its interpretation to be as simple as
possible; basic percentages of area are the easiest for staff to calculate, communicate and
enforce. We also understand that businesses have expressed concern about the new
permit form's length and complexity.
Information provided by the applicant on permit forms is used to verify compliance with
several variables inherent in the window sign code. While lengthy, the window sign
permit application was condensed to require the minimum amount of information needed
in order to determine if the applicant's request meets the 2005 Code amendment
standards.
Regardless of the percentages that arise out of the Task Force work, a simplified code
would still require square footage information be submitted on the application. However,
building square footage, window square footage, and sign square footage are the basic
information needed to process an application on a code that is based on square footage
requirements.
Notwithstanding the debate on permit fee, we have found the most effective way to
efficiently track (and enforce) signs of all kinds is via a Sign Permit. Other approaches,
such as case-by-case enforcement of standards, are feasible, but present challenges of
their own, in terms of establishing a baseline and other issues discussed below.
Measuring Sign Area
Since the ordinance should generally be content neutral, it is important to have a common
understanding of how the size of a sign or the message part of a sign's area is calculated.
According to sign code requirements as listed in Sec. 11.70, Subd. 28.A.3.(k), sign area
is defined as "the gross area, exclusive of supportive frame, which contains copy or
identifying features such as a logo, character or identifying figure. The gross area shall
be calculated as an enclosed area bounded by no more than 12 straight lines."
A simple sign design that can be enclosed within a square or rectangle will be calculated
by drawing 4 lines around the area and calculating the size. A more complex design that
may have text and pictorial graphics of a complicated design would be enclosed by a
series of lines not to exceed 12 in number. While the idea of 12 line enclosure seems
complicated, it actually permits greater coverage for complex designs than a strict use of
a square or rectangular area.
A simplified code would not need to change the way in signs are measured for area.
Grandfathering Existing Signs
To grandfather existing signs, it will be necessary to establish a baseline of current signs
in the City. The way I understand the idea of grandfathering in the existing signs, any
change to any sign on or within the window area, (once a baseline is established) would
require all window signage for that business to become compliant with code
requirements regarding window signage.
If we do not have a permit process and choose to grandfather existing signs, we will need
away to create a baseline of the current signage for future changes. Again, staff would
submit that permitting is the most feasible way to efficiently establish a baseline. That
may be done by having businesses get permits (with or without a fee) for existing signs
including any variance from new standards.
In order to establish a baseline of the existing current signage to be grandfathered in,
without a permit, a site visit by staff would be required to obtain the current site
conditions by way of inspection, documentation and measurements to determine what
size the existing signs are.
By whatever means grandfathering would occur, it would be important to clarify whether
there would be a timeline within which non -conforming signs would need to come into
compliance or whether compliance would need to occur at the time that the sign is
changed because of deterioration, business decision or business change.
Seven of the City's 24 strip malls were visited by staff thus far. Photo documentation of
existing window signage was obtained for each tenant space at the 7 malls, which
accounted for 66 businesses recorded. A letter regarding window and temporary signage
along with permit forms was given to each of the 66 businesses; however, measurements
of the existing window signage were not made.
A simplified code regarding grandfathering in existing signs would require staff obtain
measurements of the existing signage for the 24 malls and any other retail buildings,
including those already visited, as well as obtaining photo documentation of the
properties not yet visited. Consideration would need to be made for those businesses that
have already paid for and obtained window sign permits.
What Defines a Window Si,n?
Whatever percentage or regulation is determined, it will be important to determine
whether it would apply to anything other than signs applied immediately on the window.
(The following information does not apply to the exemptions 2 square feet for store hours
and open/closed status, exemption for safety, security, or general information signs, and
exemption for civic or Chamber of Commerce signs. You may note that exemptions do
make reference to content. This deviates from the general effort to focus on physical
dimension and not content, but this approach is primarily to benefit the property
owner/business and to minimize the need for interpretation.)
The City Code defines signage as follows:
• A sign "means any surface, facing or object upon which there is printed, painted
or artistic matter, design or lighting".
• A business sign "means any sign upon which there is any name or designation
that has as its purpose business, professional or commercial identification and
which is related directly to the use of the premises upon which the signs is
located".
• A product sign "means any sign upon which there is any brand name, trademark,
logo, distinctive symbol, designation or advertising which has as its purpose the
promotion of any business, product, goods, activity or service".
Several questions have come up regarding specific, unique placement of sign banners or
placement of product at or near windows, and what would be considered signage and
what would not. This becomes a matter of determining whether the placement of the sign
or product is clearly visible from the traveled portion of the site (sidewalk or parking lot)
and whether the placement meets the definition of a sign, business sign, or product sign.
On the basis of the definitions and visibility factor, as staff began its informational
discussions with businesses, the following interpretations were used in an attempt to be
equitable in the application of the new code:
• Signs applied directly to the window surface would be subject to the code
requirements.
• Other signs located immediately inside, but not applied to the window (neon
signs, placards, etc.) would be subject to the code. Generally, such signs are
placed within 18 inches of the window surface.
• A banner hanging within the tenant space, parallel to the window, and on or in the
window and clearly visible from the parking lot, was determined to be subject to
the regulations of the sign code. But a banner hanging 36" from a window (clear
aisle walking space according to building and fire code) would not be subject to
the sign code. If the direction is to continue to apply the window sign code to
objects not applied directly to the window, it would be appropriate to define the
distance from the window within which the code would apply.
• A banner hanging in the window, but perpendicular to the window would not be
subject to the sign code, as it is not clearly visible from the parking lot.
Whether products displayed in windows constitute a sign is perhaps one of the
most challenging interpretations to make. Staff's interpretation to date is not
intended to interfere with product display or the general ability of businesses to
manage stock and lay out their store. The determination that was made was that
stacks of product placed at or near a window and clearly visible from the parking
lot, with a specific, identifiable product name or logo, which would tend to make
a reasonable person conclude the product placement is meant to attract attention
as to the brand of product offered, was determined to be subject to the regulations
of the sign code. The bright line between general display and display intended to
act as a sign is difficult to draw. One clear example of product used as signage is
when alternating colors of packages are used to spell out a message in the stock
stored by a window. On the other hand, the mere fact that product stocked by a
window displays the name of the product on the package, may not be considered a
sign. The input of the Task Force to help draw a clear distinction in this regard
will be helpful.
A simplified code regarding distance setbacks for signs or product in window areas
would help staff and businesses make a determination where signs or product within
window areas could be before they are classified as window signage.
Conclusion
It appears that simplification of the window sign code may simplify some matters of the
application for both businesses and City staff, but basic square footage information on the
building, the windows, and the signage would still be required. The method of measuring
the sign area would not need to change with code simplification. Grandfathering existing
window signs via free or paid Sign Permit would be the most efficient means to
document what is currently at each site, as well as to process permit fee returns to those
businesses that have already paid for window sign permits. Any code simplification
would benefit both staff and businesses if it clarified sign or product placement on or
within the window, and where sign and product placement is allowed without a sign
permit.