No preview available
CAS-17_ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER MINOR PUD AMENDMENT0 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. Non -Scannable Item Item 2 CCs Description Folder Number / Folder Name Job Number Box Number 2322q CC��n CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Far: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fz 952.227.1110 Pudic Warks 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web site wmv.ci.chanhassen.mn.us October 17, 2008 Jim Abrahamson Sign Source 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Amendment to Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Design Standards 92-2 — Planning Case 08-17 Dear Mr. Abrahamson: This letter is to formally notify you that on October 13, 2008, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 92-2), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign. Staff anticipates that you will work with Century Gas, LLC to eliminate the temporary signage within Arboretum Shopping Center. The specific amendment to Section el is approved as follows: e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot I shall not contain any monument signs. In retum, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. ii. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow M SCANNED Mr. Jim Abrahamson Planning Case 08-17 October 17, 2008 Page 2 v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single- family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Angie Auseth Planner I c: Ron Clark, North Coast Partners, LLP Jerry Mohn, Building Official Building Permit File PUD 92-2 File SPR 03-06 File g.Nplan\2008 planning cases\08-17 arboretum shopping center ntinor pud anrndment\08-17 leuer of approval.doc n-0 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 473 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by amending the Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Design Standards, Section el. Signage Criteria, to read as follows: PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to • place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. ii. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, • whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall SCANNED be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single- family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of October, 2008. ATTEST: T dd Gerhardt, Clerk/Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 23, 2008) 2 • CJ City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 9. Any additional development to Parcel A or Parcel B shall require additional stormwater ponding. (This would include Phase III of Parcel A). 10. The 60 outdoor storage units shall not increase the hard surface coverage on the site. 11. The outdoor storage shall be removed from the site upon completion of Phase III of the mini - storage facility. 12. Sign 2, the ground low profile sign along Old Highway 212, must be removed. 13. Sign 4, the directional sign at the corner of Old Highway 212 and Stoughton Avenue, must be removed. 14. Sign 1, the entrance sign along Stoughton Avenue: a. Shall meet the definition of a ground low profile sign in that it must be in contact with the ground; b. May not exceed 64 square feet of sign display area; c. May not be greater than 8 feet in height; d. A sign permit must be approved prior to alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed prior to sign permit approval. 15. Sign 3, the pylon sign along Old Highway 212 - A sign permit must be approved prior to alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed prior to sign permit approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER: CONSIDER REOUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN LED APPLICANT: SIGN SOURCE & NORTH COAST PARTNERS, LLP. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This application is an amendment to a PUD. This is a neighborhood shopping center district and this item was held, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 2"d. They did spend some time discussing motion signs and how they're interpreted and I'll discuss that in a minute as we go forward. This sign does, this property is located on the intersection of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. When the sign package was put together, that back lot does abut residential. While there is a buffer there because of the Bluff Creek overlay zoning district, the property in this comer up in here is part of the Arboretum Village. So in looking at the sign package there it was intended to actually put a sign for this property, instead of on the street frontages, to Highway 5 where it got better visibility. So this is the sign we're talking about. The PUD says monument signs only. Not to exceed 10 feet, and then the Lot 2, which is this front, also has a sign, a monument sign for the gas station. So in looking at that amendment, and the location of the signs, the applicant wanted to do a pretty large scrolling, changeable copy sign. So in looking at reviewing that, we want to SCANNED 10 City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 be consistent with what we've allowed for other signs. So what this request is for a minor PUD amendment on the electronic reader sign, which is a, we could put into the PUD amendment as, or as a conditional use and other zoning districts. So what we're recommending here is amending the PUD to allow the electronic changeable copy, so that's the actual request. So the current sign would be what's out there today, and the uses that are in those back businesses. So there would still be some space but what the recommendation is, consistent with what allowed for changeable copy, to put that on the top. There's numerous iterations on this when it was appeared before staff to get a much larger sign and didn't want to go down that road. Certainly we think that the changeable copy architecturally could be nicer than a lot of the read that might be harder to get on the sign. Again some of the concern too was that the existing gas station sign, the proliferation of some of the temporary signs out there, that we're hoping too while they're different owners, the original developer trying to work through some of those issues. So the applicant's intent is to advertise more visibility for that back lot. Again we put that up front on Highway 5 to get better visibility. In tum what we were looking at is to get rid of some of that temporary signage on Lot 1. Again some of that's related to the gas station and so any, we're hoping that the LED, by allowing some changeable copy on that, to accommodate some of the gas station's needs. Any questions so far on that? Mayor Furlong: Is this sign on Lot P Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: It's on the same lot as the gas station? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes. The gas station sign is actually in this area here. Mayor Furlong: But it's on Lot 2 I should say. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yeah. They're both on the same lot. And again that was put together with the PUD because it was felt like because the residential behind, and there isn't much visibility there. That really the traffic seeing that would probably read from Highway 5. Making the turn to go into to support those businesses. And the way it's set up, the gas station and the car wash really does kind of screen that back area. Mayor Furlong: So is the, in terns of the temporary signage for the gas station business, part of the conditions here is to eliminate that. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And use the electronic sign to promote temporary. Kate Aanenson: That was what we communicated to the applicant. That we believe that would be the purpose and the intent of amending that is that should help eliminate. Mayor Furlong: And were they in agreement with that? City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 Kate Aanenson: They said they were. Councilman Litsey: Can I just ask one quick. On LED on the sign, is that, the height of the lettering really going to be that visible? Kate Aanenson: Well you know there was discussion on that regarding the height of that and if you look at what the size of this is compared to what you would have for example on the Legion on Highway 5. That was really our first one on Highway 5 and there was some debate among the council on that, whether or not that would be an issue. I think what came up and one of the neighbors spoke on this issue too. We looked at the spacing from the intersection. That's why we located it at that. It's further from the intersection so you don't have the dual read of the signal and the sign itself. So this is further from the intersection. But one of the neighbors did speak about the concern about that and the Planning Commission did spend some time talking about what's scrolling. What's changeable because our ordinance is a little bit ambiguous on that. We do have most of the changeable copies that we have in the city, do roll and not with a lot of frequency but they do change. The Walgreen's sign. Even Chapel Hill. The high school ones. They change with different events so we're trying to regulate some of that and we're going to come back with more specifics but in the staff report itself we did address kind of some of those issues. Engineering also looked at some issues regarding safety and some of that too. But I think it was very difficult to say, if you look at what we put in the staff report, on page 2 of the updated, after the Planning Commission. When we looked at the other ones. Are they scrolling? Are they changing? Are they in motion? Trying to find some uniformity and language and what that means. Is it color bursting? Is it monochromatic? So that's kind of what we looked at. Most of these signs are either yellow or amber or the red. It's how they read, so they're singular color. So in the discussion we kind of reached a consensus that we looked at what Minnetonka and Eden Prairie are doing about changeable copies. That is our interpretation that the current ordinance prohibits flashing scrolling but errs on the side of caution so we're kind of trying to regulate that, that it doesn't become a nuisance. Because the other one that does change a lot also is the movie theater sign, which is red. That changes with some regularity. So we haven't had a lot of complaints or issues with that too, but that's something that we're monitoring, and we'll be looking at that on the code update too. Councilman Litsey: I mean in reading through, it just seems to me that scrolling probably is perhaps the most pragmatic in terms of people. Kate Aanenson: Trying to read it, right. Councilman Litsey: Read it and diverting their attention away than just. Kate Aanenson: Changing. Councilman Litsey: Changing isn't you know, if it's done at reasonable intervals isn't probably going to be that bad but if we, I don't know. So they haven't really decided what they're going to do for sure there? 12 City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Right. And I think that's something that we'll be coming back with more specifics on that. How they would adapt that and they're aware that we're looking at that too. That issue. Councilman Litsey: So by approving this though we're not necessarily for certain what we're going to end up with. Kate Aanenson: Well again, we have a lot of different iterations of that right now. We don't really have a lot of problems in the areas that we have that. Even on the Legion site, which is probably on about equal volume or speed of traffic. Councilman Litsey: Yeah I would say so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that one does change. Advertising a steak fry or activities that they have there too so. Todd Gerhardt: And enforcement is difficult. Sometimes it's scrolling. Sometimes it's set and you know, you're out there and you're trying to take pictures. Councilman Litsey: It changes. Todd Gerhardt: It changes. Kate Aanenson: It changes, yeah you know. Todd Gerhardt: Or we're not there when it's scrolling. Kate Aanenson: Right. Even the Walgreen one too. We haven't seen an increase in traffic issues there so we are trying to monitor that and trying to get some more specific language to bring some uniformity to it. Obviously this is kind of a new technology that a lot of cities are struggling with too. It's not the same as the reader billboards. So I mean you have to kind of look at, that's at one end of the spectrum and we're at the other end, so we are looking at that and try to come to consensus. But we felt that this provides an opportunity to create a message without having a proliferation of some of this other stuff that they're trying to create. We felt that was a good thing. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Let's see, so that was the, so the staff report was amended to talk about the scrolling part, and then that, we'll re-examine the city codes is what we're also recommending from that Planning Commission update. So then the motion then before you would be to amend the shopping center PUD to allow the sign criteria, allowing for electronic message center, and again the motion is on the front page of your staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you may have. 13 City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I don't know if it's a question but a comment. Maybe an observation and correct me because I'm probably just not reading it right in the staff report but I think it says under the current ordinance many of the signs are in violation of city code. So does that mean that everyone has to get a special permit to have these and go through that process now? Kate Aanenson: I think when we adopted the LED, we didn't go back and modify what we said scrolling and that so when we adopted a new, allowing a new format, or new technology but didn't go back and look at our ordinance so they're in conflict so we need to reconcile those so the Planning Commission also pointed out, so we'll be coming, bringing that back forward to you because we've already permitted a lot of them. Our ordinance does allow electronic message boards and I think the purpose of electronic message boards is that you can change the message, as opposed to going out and moving the letters. So what does that mean? You can only change it once a day? Once a week? And that's where we missed changing that part of the language so they're in conflict with each other and we recognize that so we'll be fixing that. But you're right. Right now they are in conflict. Mayor Furlong: And until we get that, until we go through the Planning Commission to the council and come to a resolution, we're not going to be citing anybody for. Kate Aanenson: No. No, because we've permitted them and I think the ones that we, the ones that we've legitimately permitted are, we haven't had any problems with. Councilwoman Tjomhom: No, well I mean I'm sorry. I don't mean to cause a whole big issue Kate Aanenson: No, the Planning Commission brought up the same thing and it's something we need to resolve. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah because, like I said you know, having to have every one of these people pay $300 to. Kate Aanenson: Right, no. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Get permission to use their sign correctly. Kate Aanenson: And I think too once we do this, that would be a great group to invite in to review the ordinance to see how it's working for them or any issues that, because they're using it. To give us some guidance. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Because I can see this as kind of a wave of the future. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilwoman Tjornhom: More and more businesses are going to. 14 City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Well we want to employ it. At the library site. We talked about that. The high school's going to use it so, you know we need to get up to speed on that. On what that means. Mayor Furlong: And I think your comment that the whole reason to have an electronic sign is so the message can change from time to time. That's why you do it. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, instead of going out and moving the letters around. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Turning individual ones on and off. Kate Aanenson: Like the gas signs used to do, yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: A reverse strategic initiative. Mayor Furlong: There you go. Any other questions on this for staff? If not is the applicant here this evening? Do you see them here? Kate Aanenson: No. Mr. Clark, no I do not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom: They left a message on their scrolling sign. Mayor Furlong: Well I hope they don't have it up yet. Okay. Since they're not here, any questions. Does anybody have any questions for the applicants that they wanted to ask? Okay. Comments from council. Thoughts or comments. Makes sense for people to move forward. Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I guess the thing that I would look forward to is, and I think Kate mentioned most of it but I'd like to know the purpose of these signs from a business perspective. Not an individual business but you know what are we trying to accomplish here? And then I think from there as we discuss what the ordinance should be, to try to adopt something to again help business. There are limits as Kate said. You've got a wide spectrum of you know what you're looking at for signs here. But this continues to come up and it's just, yeah I'd like to see us move towards something because people, as you say, they're violating the ordinance, or they're interpreting it completely wrong or they're just kind of saying well, we're going to invest all this money and stick it out there. What are you going to do about it? So yeah, I'd like to see us adopt something that's consistent but yet meets the needs of business and I think that's one thing that I'm afraid may be missing because I don't hear a lot, I hear from residents. I understand their concerns but what's business saying about this? I think they need to come and tell us what's the purpose of these signs so that we can craft an ordinance that will you know help us now and in the future. So that's the only comment I would get and I don't know if you can get anybody to come forward and help or not but I would encourage that. Mayor Furlong: I would think the Chamber of Commerce would be interested in participating in that. I think that would be a good representation of our businesses here in Chanhassen. 15 City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 Councilman McDonald: I would agree. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, would somebody like to make a motion? Councilwoman Ernst: I will make one. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center PUD 03-06, Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign as specified pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I'll second it. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? If there's no further discussion we'll proceed with the vote. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign as follows: Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. ii. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008 iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right- of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 -foot setback from the property lines. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. I'd just like to briefly talk a little bit about construction management as it's different, it's basically a new type of contract. A new type of procedure model that the City would like to implement for this new public works facility. Basically the City has two main models that we are allowed to use. One is hiring an architect and sending out the plans and specs and to do a prime contractor. One contractor. He would give us a price back and have, obviously advertising for this. We pick the lowest bidder and move on from there. There's some inherent risk involved with doing that. Another option is construction management services, and a lot of other cities, communities, private organizations have gone to this model for several reasons that I'll explain. But construction management services, what is it? It's basically a contract that, between the City and a construction management service that basically the City would hire this firm to work with the architect and put plans and specs together and go out for bid for construction services, but not just the one prime contractor but all the sub -disciplines so basically instead of going and soliciting for one bid for a project, the City would not solicit several contracts, or packages. Bid packages for a particular project so. By doing this there's several different advantages for doing this. Like I 17 CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PC Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park 8 Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning 8 Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Puhlic Warks 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Coder Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: October 13, 2008 SUBJ: Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD (03-06) Amendment 7755 Century Blvd — Planning Case #08-17 PROPOSED MOTION: "The City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign, as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a minor PUD amendment to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign located along Highway 5. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 2, 2008. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion recommending approval of the minor PUD amendment with the added condition that the applicant shall work with staff to determine if the sign should be permitted to scroll. During the Planning Commission meeting the applicant stated that he assumed the sign would be able to scroll, while the recommended criteria prohibited the sign from scrolling. This criterion reflects the current standards outlined in the sign ordinance pertaining to motion signs (sec. 20-1259 (2) f)). The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant and review the traffic safety concerns regarding motion signs. The Planning Commission also directed staff to reexamine the sign ordinance to ensure that all motion signs are regulated under the same standards. There are six other LED signs throughout the City: Chanhassen is a Community fa lite - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED 3 Todd Gerhardt Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment October 13, 2008 Page 2 Business Location Speed Limit Type of Motion Chapel Hill Academy West 78 Street 30 MPH Scrolling Walgreen's West 79th Street 30 MPH Changing Chanhassen Cinema Market Boulevard 30 MPH Motion American Legion Highwa 5 55 MPH Scrolling TCF Bank West 78 Street 30 MPH Changing Halla Nursery Pioneer Trail 50 MPH Full Color Changing Under the current ordinance many of these signs are in violation of City Code. It is staff s opinion that the intent of these signs is to change the message, but not to cause a distraction to vehicular traffic. Staff has researched motion signs to determine what safety factors are associated with motion signs. Unfortunately, staff was unable to locate any scientific data that provides standards or guidelines for the frequency in which the copy changes as it relates to the speed of traffic viewing the sign. Staff has also researched ordinances from other cities that allow motion signs. For example, both the cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka allow motion signs, but the copy may not change less than every 20 minutes and any special effects are prohibited from being used as part of the sign. Minnetonka's ordinance goes on to require a certain size letter dependant on the speed limit of the road. Staffs interpretation is that the current ordinance prohibiting scrolling, flashing, etc. ens on the side of caution. However, after surveying the existing motion signs throughout the City and neighboring community's ordinances, it is staffs opinion that scrolling should be a permitted feature. Staff will re-examine the current standards in the city's sign ordinance. Should the City Council direct staff to maintain the current sign ordinance, the aforementioned businesses will be contacted to ensure compliance with City Code. A resident from Arboretum Village spoke during the public hearing and voiced her concerns regarding the light from the sign projecting into the residential neighborhood as well as the traffic concerns with a motion sign. The Planning Commission minutes for September 2, 2008 are item la of the October 13, 2008 City Council packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the amended motion as specified on pages 4 and 5 in the staff report dated September 2, 2008 approving the minor PUD amendment. ATTACHMENT 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 2, 2008. GAPLANt2008 Planning Casest08-17 Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amenchn"AExecutive Summary.doc PROPOSED MOTION: "The Planning GenwpAssien meewmefids the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign, as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report." PROPOSAL: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow an electronic changeable copyreader board on an existing monument sign along Highway 5. LOCATION: 7755 Century Blvd. Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center APPLICANT: Jim Abrahamson Ron Clark Sign Source North Coast Partners, LLP 7660 Quattro Drive 7500 West 78' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55439 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 1.58 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD amendment must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Arboretum Shopping Center provides neighborhood commercial uses for the adjacent residential properties to the north and east, as well as retail services to motorists on Highway 5. Because the abutting parcels to the north are residential, signage was prohibited along West 781i Street. In lieu of signage on along West 78th Street, a 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign was permitted along Highway 5 to advertise the businesses in the strip mall (Lot 1) north of the Amstar gas station. The proprietors of the strip mall would like to increase their visibility and ability to advertise by adding an electronic message center on the existing monument sign. Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 2 of 5 ADJACENT ZONING: The property to the north is zoned Planned Unit Development (Arboretum Shopping Center PUD 2003-06). The property to the south, across Highway 5, is zoned Planned Unit Development (Arboretum Business Park 6'h PUD 92-6). The property to the east is zoned Planned Unit Development (Vasserman Ridge PUD 2002-02) and contains a multi -tenant commercial and office building. The property to the west, across Century Boulevard, is zoned Planned Unit Development (Arboretum Village PUD 99-2). APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 2, Amendments Arboretum Shopping Center Design Standards (PUD 2003-06) BACKGROUND The site is located north of Highway 5, east of Century Boulevard and south of West 78th Street. Access to the site is gained via a full curb cut off of West 78th Street and a right in/out off of Century Boulevard. On July 28, 2003, City Council approved the replatting of Outlot D of Arboretum Village into Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center (Subdivision 2003-08). The City Council also adopted the following sign criteria: Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 3 of 5 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 -foot setback from the property lines. Although the subject sign is located on Lot 2 which is owned by Century Gas LLC, North Coast Partners, LLP (property owners of Lot 1) owns the sign and has an easement on Lot 2 for the location of the sign. As stated in the design standards, signage is prohibited along West 78th Street. ANALYSIS North Coast Partners, LLP (Lot 1) is requesting an amendment to the sign criteria for Arboretum Shopping Center to allow a portion of the existing 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign to be converted into an LED motion sign. The intent of the request is to allow greater advertising and visibility for the businesses on Lot 1, Block 1 Arboretum Shopping Center. Other than the existing monument sign, Lot 1 has limited visibility along Highway 5. The height and display area of the sign will not change; however, four of the existing tenant panels will be replaced by the proposed LED sign. The sign display area of the proposed LED sign will occupy 25% of the total sign display area. Given the ability to provide advertising for the strip center, the use of temporary signage for Lot 1 is prohibited and all temporary advertising is restricted to the proposed LED motion sign. As previously stated, the subject sign is located on Lot 2 (Century Gas, LLC). However, it is owned, operated, and for the benefit of the business located on Lot 1(North Coast Partners, LLP). North Coast Partners will provide an opportunity for Lot 2 to utilize the motion sign if they choose to do so. This would be a separate agreement between the property owners. ......- 78TH STREET r------------- I K � � I j 1 A U I T L--_ _---J x -------------------- I .:: v: I BLOCK 1 ; > Q f ui 2 e i A, I Subject ` Sign I I STATE TRUNK}!13HWR'i ^^, `s Although the subject sign is located on Lot 2 which is owned by Century Gas LLC, North Coast Partners, LLP (property owners of Lot 1) owns the sign and has an easement on Lot 2 for the location of the sign. As stated in the design standards, signage is prohibited along West 78th Street. ANALYSIS North Coast Partners, LLP (Lot 1) is requesting an amendment to the sign criteria for Arboretum Shopping Center to allow a portion of the existing 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign to be converted into an LED motion sign. The intent of the request is to allow greater advertising and visibility for the businesses on Lot 1, Block 1 Arboretum Shopping Center. Other than the existing monument sign, Lot 1 has limited visibility along Highway 5. The height and display area of the sign will not change; however, four of the existing tenant panels will be replaced by the proposed LED sign. The sign display area of the proposed LED sign will occupy 25% of the total sign display area. Given the ability to provide advertising for the strip center, the use of temporary signage for Lot 1 is prohibited and all temporary advertising is restricted to the proposed LED motion sign. As previously stated, the subject sign is located on Lot 2 (Century Gas, LLC). However, it is owned, operated, and for the benefit of the business located on Lot 1(North Coast Partners, LLP). North Coast Partners will provide an opportunity for Lot 2 to utilize the motion sign if they choose to do so. This would be a separate agreement between the property owners. Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 4of5 72.00" 72" 2F' Existing Sign Proposed Sign There are standards for motion signs within the city's sign ordinance which will act as a guideline to develop standards for Arboretum Shopping Center. Proposed Amendment e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. u. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 5 of 5 v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right- of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. A. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, seeelling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. via. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 -foot setback from the property lines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planiikig Geffmission reaommendq the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign, as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Proposed Sign Schematic. 4. Amended Arboretum Shopping Center PUD. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-17 arboretum shopping center minor pud amcndment\atboretum shopping center staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA I 11 1 1 :01 CI11U1I: 1► Application of Jim Abrahamson of Sign Source and Ron Clark of North Coast Partners, LLP for an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Planned Unit Development Design Standards. On September 2, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Sign Source and North Coast Partners, LLP for an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Planned Unit Development Design Standards to allow an electronic message center on an existing 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign located on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development amendment preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development — PUD. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The electronic motion sign complies with City Zoning Code regarding signage and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Findine: The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards. c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed use will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Findine: The proposed use is intended to improve the visibility of the business on Lot 1, Block 1 Arboretum Shopping Center, by upgrading their advertising with an electronic message center on an existing monument sign located along Highway 5. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city s service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Fes: Based upon traffic studies conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer, at the time of the original approval for Arboretum Shopping Center, traffic generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #08-17 dated September 2, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2°d day of September, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman g:`pla&2008 planning cases\08-17 arboretum shopping center minor pud amendment\ indings of factdoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 Planning Case No. Q �6 — CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 31 2008 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT ApplicantAddress: • 0 (7 .�. ..L L 1 Owner Name and Add NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* 11)_ Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment X Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) - X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ 3(3(32? 4 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED At burg-kuVn 5- PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: as - o(inc/ ao::�.y TOTAL ACREAGE: M: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: �e rina l oM�gu �.e D c.5--e- REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: f U FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. net" re of Applicant Date gnature of Fee Owner Date G:\plan\fortes\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 1/08 SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: YES NO REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: This application must be completed in full and be typewniten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provislons. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of appticaton deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and got I am respons-ible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Ownet's Duplicate Certificate of Ttle. Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasloility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any aulhcdzation to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant -6 "1 nature of Fee Owner G:*LANlfor=a Developmwt Review Appication.DOC Date Date Rev. 17/0.5 Z 4lLZ-90Z-£9L welnel >heW g e511 dl£Zl, 90 £L 6ny C Kefurbi5hed Existing 5ign w/Electronic Display signs Depth of electronic 5ign5 back to back will le roughly 16 inches. Depth of Existing sign is 14 inches. Electronic signs will protrude out roughly 2 inches on each side from existing sign face. Cabinet 5ft9.o0in APPROVED AS IS: - 8'r Deep per sign vlBual Cabinet 25in 2ftB.DDin AF -3400 -31x110 -20 -A -2V GalaxyS 20mm Monochrome t Outdoor LED Matrix Displry-3400 Sanaa Menu, a µ,els no, cy eo µ,.a ion, Pua vnm. 20.An— I'DDoli : AMBER MSHADES Fec.Co01i 2V..-Bssi SMm V... And. A,o,s.e HaitMrel t 10 r.,mi V.niul (Ater. Orsi 2'9-H %] in W A 0 e- D (Ai pman.icnsl Mu P..,. .10 M., WANAi W.Ipnr. Urye[Fp.E IW Is. p.r Iece: Per., B 2X 1. per lata Galaxy® AF 3200/AF-3400 Choose One of the Following Outdoor Display Communication MethpEe RS232. Communication Kit RS422 Floor, Wine Ethernet, or Fiber Ethernet GalaxyQVGaBryPRxfD External External Temperature Sensor with TBmpBrature Sensor Op cK Connect VenuaA 1500 v3 Software Venus® 1500 v3 installation CDROM - With Licensing For One (1) PC. Refer to SL -03101 for OS requirements. PLEASE (HANGE AND RESUBMIT: 11 UnEerwrilers aj� Labontories int. INSTALL IN 4CCWNANCE WmIiNE N.EC. AND LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES. Co.: I". URI D16BA 10751 NOK, 7emdmeaa mi Cogg9Blw Rio lac ❑AI Rs Bon.: uspiat34h Lgn lype! 4HAekd NT./Eletradiix, Lu l: WLtW gn 2: o Fant I: It Few 2: a Fonl 3: (No Q n (NB (1) It WIN Q u (dw QD M �NSOURCE 7660 Qlonro Drive. (hwhaeseD MN 55317 1: 952908.9127 . Fox: 952.908.9169 Adopted 7/28/03 Amended 10/13/08 EXHIBIT C ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. A specific lighting and sign plan shall be submitted prior to final plat. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant (no drive-thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 7 variance was granted by the City Council Hard Surface Commercial 70% 68.3% Parking Setback if screening is provided 10 feet 10 feet d. Building Materials and Design C-1 COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Brick shall be used as the principal material and must be approved to assure uniformity with the residential uses. 2. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials. 3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 4. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 5. All buildings on the commercial site shall have a pitched roof line. 6. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. ii. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not C-2 a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall Mounted Signs 1. Building "A" shall be permitted signage along the south and west elevations only. 2. Building `B" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 3. The gas pump canopy shall not be permitted to have any signage. 4. The carwash shall be permitted to have one sign along the south or east elevation. 5. All signs require a separate permit. 6. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 9. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. giplan\2008 planning cases\08-17 arboretum shopping center minor pad amendmenApud 03-6 design standards revised 9-22-08.doc C-3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 21, 2008, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment — Planning Case 08-17 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thiso ls}-day of 0.1— 2008. LF - Notary lic r K n J. En elh dt, Deputy Clerk _� KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public-Minnesota ,My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposal: Amendment to allow an LED motion sign and increase square footage of permitted sign Applicant: Sin Source & North Coast Partners, LLP Property 7755 Century Boulevard Location: (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: W What Happens Wthe 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-17.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclallindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, dependina on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposal: Amendment to allow an LED motion sign and increase square footage of permitted sign Applicant: Sin Source & North Coast Partners, LLP Property 7755 Century Boulevard Location: (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center) A locatlon map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: W What Happens Wthe 1 • Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sere/plan/08-17.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting, • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ulsciaiT6C This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, stale and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. if errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. A Ga{mgN NW, Grw 4vh,MNsu Disclaimer: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the usees access or use of data provided. CHARLES A WHITE JUDY E OLSON JEFFREY R NADEAU 2754 CENTURY CIR 2750 CENTURY CIR 2775 CENTURY CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4416 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4416 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4416 VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER ASSN NORTH T PARTNERS LLP CENTURY GAS LLC C/O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7500 78TH W 7755 CENTURY BLVD 7100 MADISON AVE W 510 , M 5 9 -2517 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4410 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 -3602 NORTHCOAST PARTNERS LLP DAVID PAUL YOUNG NANCY L WRIGHT 7500 78TH ST W 2759 CENTURY CIR 2763 CENTURY CIR EDINA , MN 55439 -2517 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4416 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -4416 KIMAN & JUNG JOO ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY JACQUELYN R LARSON 7693 CENTURY BLVD 815 NORTHWEST PKWY #140 7673 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4415 EAGAN, MN 55121-1580 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4415 JOHN R NEUMAN MARK A & CHRISTINA M STAMPS LYNNE I ETLING 7677 CENTURY BLVD 7704 RIDGEVIEW WAY 7681 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4415 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4534 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4415 MICHAEL G SCHAFFER & TIMOTHY M KLEIN & A S PETERSON KAR SOPHEA & SANN Y TUY STEPHANIE A DAUGHERTY KLEIN KAR 2751 CENCENTURY CIR CENTURY CIR 7710 RIDGEVIEW WAY CHANHASSEN, IR 55317-0416 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 4416 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4534 DAVID M & CAROL B HERTIG PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORP AMY B WESLEY 7716 RIDGEVIEW WAY 815 NORTHWEST PKWY #140 7685 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4534 EAGAN, MN 55121-1580 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4415 SARAH FUNK STEPHEN E JANKOWIAK LESLIE E JOHNSON 2771 CENTURY CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST 7689 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 4416 1118 25TH ST NW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4415 BUFFALO. MN 55313 4453 ALSHOUSE PROPERTIES LLC WYLS LLC STEVEN SLOWEY 1300 WILLOWBROOK DR PO BOX 1080 PO BOX 1080 WAYZATA , MN 55391 -9583 YANKTON , SO 57078 -1080 YANKTON , SD 57078 -1080 US BANK NA ATTN: AMY HERNESMAN 2800 LAKE ST E MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 -1930 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boa 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1 100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Hnance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 9552.227.1110 Recreation Cerder 2310 Courter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior colder Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web She www.a.chaMassen.mnus •• September 3, 2008 Jim Abrahamson Sign Source 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ron Clark North Coast Partners, LLP 7500 West 78's Street Edina, MN 55439 Re: Arboretum Shopping Center PUD Amendment Development Review Deadline Planning Case 08-17 Dear Jim and Ron, Following the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, September 2, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment with the condition that the applicant work with staff to determine whether scrolling should be a permitted use, as part of the LED sign. Staff is in the process of gathering information pertaining to the motion of the sign as it relates to traffic and vehicular safety. As the applicant, please provide staff with your data as it relates to the safety concerns, function and operation parameters of the sign. Please have this information to staff no later than September 12, 2008. In order to gather the necessary data, this item is rescheduled for the October 13, 2008, City Council meeting. Because staff is unable to process this application within the 60 -day review deadline, the City is taking an additional 60 days to complete its review. The review deadline for this item is November 28, 2008. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1132 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, AA ngie Au Planner I ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Planner Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer g:xplanx2008 planning casesx08-17 arboretum shopping center minor pud amendmentxeztension letter.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Jim Abrahamson of Sign Source and Ron Clark of North Coast Partners, LLP for an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Planned Unit Development Design Standards. On September 2, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Sign Source and North Coast Partners, LLP for an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Planned Unit Development Design Standards to allow an electronic message center on an existing 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign located on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development amendment preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development — PUD. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The electronic motion sign complies with City Zoning Code regarding signage and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Findin¢: The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards. c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. SCANNED Finding: The proposed use will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Findine: The proposed use is intended to improve the visibility of the business on Lot 1, Block 1 Arboretum Shopping Center, by upgrading their advertising with an electronic message center on an existing monument sign located along Highway 5. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Fes: The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Based upon traffic studies conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer, at the time of the original approval for Arboretum Shopping Center, traffic generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #08-17 dated September 2, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of September, 2008. giplan\2008 planning cases\08-17 arboretum shopping center minor pud amendmenAfindings of fact.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Angie Auseth, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN LED MOTION SIGN ON THE PERMITTED SIGN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD Public Present: Name Address Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78`b Street, Edina Jim Abrahamson 7660 Quattro Drive Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Undestad: The colors on the lighting. Is it all like it shows there, where it's just changing text on that type of color or do they have the multi -color. Auseth: It will be a single color. Undestad: Okay. Papke: Sir, if you could hold off until we get to public comments. Jim Abrahamson: Oh, alright. Keefe: Is there motion on this sign or is it just static? Auseth: It will just be the copy that will change periodically. SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Keefe: So it isn't like a scroll or moving? Auseth: No. The ordinance prohibits that. Keefe: Oh, okay. Laufenburger: This sign is a, it's a 10 foot sign. Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger: So it's actually twice the size of the normal monument sign, is that correct? And this is in lieu of a monument sign on both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Auseth: Lot 2 has the gas station sign. Lot 1, I'll go back to the layout here. On Lot 1 it was viewed that you could have signage along West 78th Street as well as Century Boulevard. And instead they were combined into the single sign on Lot 2 to serve Lot 1. Laufenburger: So I'm looking at your, on my document I think it's page, it must be page 3. I'm reading, it says Lot 2 will contain 1 monument sign. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. Auseth: Right, and that's to serve Lot 2. The gas station. Laufenburger: And is that the sign that he's pointed out as subject sign with a red star on it? Auseth: No. Number 1 is the 10 foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet. Laufenburger: Okay. And where's the monument sign then? Auseth: The monument sign is just south of the curvature. The monument sign is, if you look just south of the drive aisle on Lot 2, at that comer of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. Laufenburger: Okay. So it's closest to the intersection is what you're saying. Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger. But that sign does exist right now. Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you. Thomas: I don't have any questions. Dillon: So over the course of the last few months we went through all the new city codes and you know there was a lot of discussion about things, and there was one chapter that we talked `a Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 about that had signs. And I tried to look that up before I came to this. I couldn't find it and it had like, but I thought I'd just ask the staff here. So what, how are signs like this treated in the codes and all of that that we've reviewed over the last 4 or 5 months. And is there anything with this proposal that is incongruent what we're going, we just adopted. Or are in the process of adopting. Auseth: They are allowed via a conditional use permit but because this is a Planned Unit Development, they can be addressed through an amendment. So we've taken a lot of the criteria from the conditional use portion of the code and just made them work in this situation. Dillon: So it's nothing that the guidelines would go against. It's just kind of the way that we go about getting this approved. Auseth: Right. Dillon: Okay. That's it. Papke: Okay. Just one question. The typical concern with these are traffic problems, distraction of drivers going by, etc. Has the city engineer, you know anybody from the traffic area looked at this? Any concerns with it? Given it's placement, etc. Auseth: We have criteria that's in the conditional use portion of the code that states that it can't be any closer than 500 feet to an intersection. 125 feet of any residential district and we've made sure that we've met all of those criteria. Papke: Okay. So bottom line is, there's no concerns from a traffic distraction perspective. Okay. The only other thing that keeps coming up as we're, I don't know where we're at with the Halla's sign these days. I know that's been an ongoing issue and the only, has the attorney looked at this? Is there any concern that this might impact what's going on there? It's probably more of an issue for the City Council than it is for the Planning Commission but I have to ask. Any comment? Generous: It has, this report has been submitted to the City Attorney and no comment or issue on that. There is a distinction between this site and Mr. Halla's site. Papke: Oh yeah, big difference. Generous: So, and as far as the status on that, I believe they're appealing. Papke: Alright. Any other questions for staff? Are you the applicant sir? Jim Abrahamson: I am. Papke: Okay. If you'd state your name and address for the record please. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Jim Abrahamson: Jim Abrahamson with Sign Source, 7660 Quattro Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. On behalf of Ron Clark, Bryan Monahan and North Coast Partners in Edina, we'd like to request the changes you know that were brought up here to allow for this type of a sign in order to you know advertise. Do the different types of advertising that you know would eliminate a lot of the temporary signage that goes on. Banners, sales, stuff like that. The intent here is primarily for like I say, Lot 1, Block 1 but there is interest from the others in the vicinity there also to buy time on the message center. It's my understanding also that, I did the conditional use permit for the school here in town and the signs are, you are able to scroll the sign. Just not flash so that answers somebody's question over here. Papke: Anything else? Jim Abrahamson: No. Papke: Anybody have any questions? Dillon: So North Coast will own the sign? Jim Abrahamson: Yes. Dillon: And North Coast is, owns the property there? Jim Abrahamson: Yes. Dillon: And are all of the stores and everyone tenants of North Coast then? Jim Abrahamson: In Lot 1, Block 1. Dillon: Lot 1, Block 1. Okay. So the gas station is not and the Jimmy John's and the other ones are not. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah. Dillon: Okay. Jim Abrahamson: But they've all, we've been in meetings on this. We all tried to propose a new monument sign which was basically kind of out of the question because of the size so this was the second proposal. Dillon: And not that it will, just out of curiosity. So how do you, so you can sell time to other merchants to put their stuff on the sign? And will it only be for the merchants at the shopping center here or would you do other things too? Jim Abrahamson: Well you know it's always, you know at North Coast's discretion you know. There could be anything from a city event that's going on to you know, stuff in the, but it's primarily for the tenants in the buildings there. They will apply the sign and own it. Obviously 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 they work with some of the others and have shown a lot of interest in you know getting their message out there at the busy times but I'm sure if the city had some kind of events going on, you know there would be opportunity to advertise that as well. Dillon: That's the only question I have. Thomas: I'm okay. Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Abrahamson. While I appreciate your comments about the school, I'm quoting from the information that is provided to us from the staff and I'm reading, it says flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. So if it's your assumption that that is an availability for the sign, according to our information it's not. You understand my comment Mr. Abrahamson? Jim Abrahamson: I understand your comment. Dillon: Where's that? Laufenburger: Page 5 of 5. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah, I see it right here. Now I guess my question would be whether or not. Laufenburger: Did I make a mistake there? Auseth: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Jim Abrahamson: My question would be whether or not that is something new because when we've requested this originally, the only thing that we couldn't do was the flashing. Laufenburger: Well that may be between you and the applicant addressing staff but the decision that we make tonight will be based on the information provided to us by the staff. Is that true Mr. Chairman? Papke: That's correct. Unless we amend it. Laufenburger: Okay, those are the only questions I have. Keefe: No questions. Undestad: Is that something you needed to work on with them? Are you planning on a scrolling sign? Jim Abrahamson: Well these types of signs, that's how they operate is they scroll. When you read left to right. It scrolls across in front of you. The sign is designed to provide for 4 lines or Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 larger lines, say 2 lines of 12 inch and when you go with a bigger letter obviously you can get only a certain amount of characters on there so the unit is designed to scroll, just like the school sign does. And I know that's a separate sign but I guess my question would be, I was, I wasn't aware of the scrolling not being. Undestad: The way this looks to us now is you've put up a sign and that's what we read. When you're done with that, that disappears. You put up another sign. That's what we read. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah. And that's definitely one of the capabilities is just when you go to a larger letter, to be able to view it from a farther distance than generally it does scroll. Laufenburger: I think you can appreciate the potential safety issues that would be present by a sign, albeit in your best intent, but a message that scrolls over a sequence of maybe 20 seconds. You know somebody who has their attention diverted off the road for a period of 20 seconds, looking at your very attractive and very assuming sign. That may not be in the best interest of the public safety. Jim Abrahamson: Oh, I understand that. Thomas: Don't most signs scroll? I mean Walgreen's sign scrolls. The Chanhassen, that little elementary school right there on West 78th scrolls. The high school sign's going to scroll. I mean am I wrong that a lot of the signs do do that? Jim Abrahamson: And I believe that's the way it was, I guess I was out of town until I received this saying that you're not allowed to scroll. Thomas: Yeah. I guess that's my question with it as well. Papke: I think your question is a good one Denny about the safety issue. It's just, I don't pretend to know the signs here. I don't know that a flashing message is going to be even more or less distracting than a scrolling one. I don't know. Keefe: I guess the traffic guys ought to be able to help us out with that. Laufenburger: I think the question I'm raising really maybe is for a question for staff. Have we, as a Planning Commission been presented with the right material to make the right decision that gives a guidance to people who want to put electronic signs in the city of Chanhassen? And if our, if the guidance that we're saying is flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on an electronic reader board shall be prohibited, maybe that's too stringent. So I'm not sure what the resolution here is but we're being asked tonight to make a decision on something that is certainly inconsistent with Mr. Abrahamson's understanding of how these signs operate, though I'm sure they could be put in stop mode, couldn't they? Jim Abrahamson: They definitely can be put into that. I just wanted to address the issue because I had a concern as it was brought up. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Thomas: Yeah, me too. I mean. Keefe: Well I assume they can proceed under this understanding and for this particular PUD. But you'd be limited to the way that it is. ...maybe it should be tabled for you know if he wants to get it amended, he needs to go back and reconsider it or we approve it kind of as is. Or potentially we could amend. Papke: We could amend. Keefe: I don't know, have we got enough now? Papke: Or we could ask the city engineer to take a look at it with the planning staff. Jim Abrahamson: I don't want to ask for anything more than others are being allowed. Keefe: That's fair. Papke: Any other questions for the applicant? How strongly do the Lot 1, Block 1 tenants feel about this? You know I have some personal history here. Just, no conflict of interest anymore but my wife used to manage one of the businesses, the Home Appetit business that was before mealtime there. They used to bring in trailer signs just because they had such a lack of visibility back there. Is there still a strong feeling with the liquor store and so on that they really need something? Jim Abrahamson: Yeah, that's really what brought it to forefront. Dan Herbst with Pemtom Land Company is kind of, you know him and Ron Clark own the liquor store and Ron Clark and the North Coast Partners own the mall there and the visibility is just back far enough where they want to, you know they wanted to look at some issues and that's where we started it. That's why we're here. But Bryan can comment on how the tenants feel I guess. Bryan Monahan: Bryan Monahan, 7500 West 78`" Street. I'm with North Coast Partners. I'm actually the property manager. One of the things that we did find with the existing sign, if you notice on page 4 of 5, the picture on the left hand side showing the existing sign is actually in the snow. Oddly enough as you're driving on Highway 5, either east or west, the sign kind of disappears into the mound. One of the reasons for the LED, as Dan Herbst from the liquor store kind of brought to our attention was, it would really attract some attention to the center. Being the property manager, we've also recognized that for some time now. We've had some vacancies that in all of our showings of the spaces there, one of the things that they've brought up is that they don't really see the visibility from the highway. That there isn't good enough visibility for the stores to locate in that location. One of the reasons for the sign, for our own use would be to advertise leasing space as well, which would fill up the center as well. And then when we did talk to, I did talk to some of the tenants of the building, the existing tenants. Fantastic Sams for instance is one of them. They're constantly advertising hair deals or whatever. They are very, very interested. There's another tenant that is a karate studio. He's very interested in advertising his specials for the year. There's very, very great interest for this type of a sign. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Papke: Okay. Keefe: How important is the scrolling action? Bryan Monahan: One of the things that I've found in doing some research on these signs. One of the things I've found, I live in Elk River and there's a sign on my way home. Scrolling, number one allows you to have the bigger letters, as Jim had pointed out. You can see it from a longer distance. If you're reading, which obviously gets your attention a lot sooner to the location. The other thing is is you can fit a lot more in, into 2 seconds frankly with a scrolling sign or 3 seconds with a scrolling sign than you could in for instance 4 lines of text as shown on the proposed monument sign display. And frankly if I may interject, I would think that the smaller text would be more of a distraction because you'd be you know reading things on the sign while coming up to the stop sign or wherever rather than just kind of seeing it scroll in front of you. Papke: Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, if there's anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this issue, would you please step to the podium_ Lynne Etling: Yeah, my name is Lynne Etling and I live at, on Century Boulevard and first of all I'd like to congratulate you because I think you've really done due diligence in your background on this, but I do have a few questions because obviously living there we already have the light from the fitness center that pretty much lights the whole sky in the area, which has really ruined our residential neighborhood. But a few things I don't understand. One thing I want to make sure on your web page. You said that you had two pictures of it. One in red letters and one in the clear, and 1 believe Mark had mentioned that but I want to make sure it's in clear and not red lettering. Jim Abrahamson: It's actually amber. Lynne Etling: Amber, okay. And a few things that are confusing to me are, you know is this is a special consideration, a one time deal where you're going to let this kind of sign be in that neighborhood or is this to break the way for other businesses in that neighborhood to have a 10 foot LID? Generous: 10 foot is specific to this site. Other properties could come in for a conditional use permit to put up their own LID signs in the commercial district so across in the south side of Highway 5 there. The properties north of this, Lot 1 is prohibited from having a monument sign. That's why this one is located on Highway 5. Lynne Etling: Because they're within 500 feet, right? Generous: No, well the. Lynne Etling: Of the residents. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Generous: They meet the separation requirements. It's just as part of the planned development, it is said that they wouldn't have any monument signage on that north lot. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah, we actually passed on the entrance to that property passed on by the monument... Lynne Etling: Right. One of my issues though is that the whole corner lot there is not hidden from our building so we can sit on the patios and see everything that goes on, you know the extra light, whatever at night and from what I'm reading in this, this means that this LED light is going to be up 24 hours. Jim Abrahamson: No, I believe it says 6:00 in the morning to 10:00. Lynne Etling: Okay. So it is going to be. Pardon me while I make a note. You know I'm just one resident here so I know that I really don't have a voice for the whole community but I just wanted to come and let you know that it is a concern of mine. Obviously we need the business to succeed in that area as well so I know we need to make it work. My preference though would be not to have a scrolling sign and not to have the red. The amber would be preferable. But the main concern to me is, if you live in that neighborhood, not only do you have the light that goes on at night, but the traffic congestion in that area during rush hour is the main thing. I'm worry that it will cause more accidents. I mean for me, I go down 78th because I don't want to deal with someone rear ending me because they're looking at something or texting or whatever. So that's a big concern. And the other thing I just, you know for the other ones in the neighborhood, that's a standard 5 foot monument sign as it is right now. That's something that applies to all of them. And if they wanted to get a 10 foot then they would have to go for a special permit. Generous: No. In this development it was permitted. Lynne Etling: I mean the whole corner. The whole comer. Generous: Yes, they would have to come in especially for that. Lynne Etling: Okay. And I do believe on the web site too your paperwork stated that it would be scrolling. That to me wasn't something new but the other thing too, the other companies in the area could also advertise on it. Is that standard? I just wondered. Generous: Within the center. Lynne Etling: Yeah, within the center. Okay. Well that would be my two big things. The lights in the neighborhood and the traffic. That's the two things that really bother me. Papke: Thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate it. Lynne Etling: Yeah, thank you for listening. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Papke: Okay. I think that's it for members of the public in the room so I'll call the public hearing closed and bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Anyone? Comments. Concerns. Undestad: No, I just think that the way it's written in here we just need to figure out on the scrolling issue here. It sounds like scrolling is what they need for the larger letters but the way we have it here is not scrolling so I guess we need to figure how we want to. Papke: So would you support a condition that says you know city staff to work within themselves to satisfy themselves that scrolling is the safe thing to do? Keefe: Yeah. I think that's a good way to do it. Yeah. Laufenburger: I would support, if we could figure out the scrolling and my intent on the scrolling was just to make sure that we are acting in accordance with the guidelines that are provided by the city so. And if we need to go outside of those, let's make sure that we know we're going outside of those. Just one other comment too. I'm trying to think how the lighting of this sign, I believe this sign is not directed towards any residential housing. Yeah, I'm looking at it here and I think the signage faces kind of in the street. Easterly direction so I guess I'm comfortable that that lighting would not interfere with housing. Thomas: I too would like to figure out the scrolling issue just because I'd be in support of definitely looking at his, my concern is, if this is what our, what it says for our code is, I assume we're not all in the same path with everybody that has these kind of signs and I just want to make sure (a), we have the right information for when anybody comes forth will get the same treatment. Papke: Yep. Thomas: Then there's no surprises. Papke: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I'd agree with all that but you know so do we need to take it one, or not we but someone, like the staff or someone, take it one step further and go back and maybe amend the code because flashing and blinking, that's different than scrolling and animation. That's different than scrolling and maybe you know there's, I think there was good points made on the safety for both sides, scrolling and small letters. I mean you know it all, so maybe that is something. Papke: If you could keep down the conversation while the commission's talking. Dillon: So I think we seem to be on the same page here in terms of having the staff work out something with the applicant on this one but there might be another issue in terms of taking a look at the original guidelines. 111 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Thomas: I'd agree. Papke: Yeah, just to put a little more color on what Kevin was saying. This is at least the third LED sign I remember you know having come to the Planning Commission and it just seems like maybe the technology and the marketing is moving ahead of our ability to, of the way we have things set up to cope with it. I don't think we're, you know we shouldn't be seeing this much stuff with these signs so I guess I'd really appreciate it if city staff could take a look at this and see if we can't get some real clarity on this and make sure that we are treating everybody consistently. That we're not setting undue precedence every time we do one of these, because as we all know it's the precedence setting that always comes back to bite us because there'll be another person in here looking for another 10 foot sign in another couple months and so if we could accomplish that as well as get this specific case done tonight, I think that would be a good goal to set so. With that I'll entertain a motion. Keefe: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Papke: Would you like to add any conditions about the scrolling? Keefe: Yeah, with the condition that the applicant work with staff to address the issue of scrolling. Whether it should be allowed or not. Papke: Is there a second? Dillon: Second. Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign as follows: Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: L No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 ii. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. Hi. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right- of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot L 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 -foot setback from the property lines. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Papke: Okay. Item number 2. Lynne Etling: Can I ask one more question before I leave? Papke: Ah yes. Lynne Etling: Is there a precedence about the scrolling versus the speed of the cars going by? You know what is safer and what is not. That might be something that you could look into to. Because like Walgreen's you're going 25 miles an hour versus you know let's face it, 60 miles an hour. Papke: Yeah, that's a good point. Thank you for bringing that up. 12 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: 9/2/08 CC DATE: 9/22/08 REVIEW DEADLINE: 9/29/08 CASE #: 08-17 BY: AA "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign, as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report." PROPOSAL: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow an electronic changeable copy reader board on an existing monument sign along Highway 5. LOCATION: 7755 Century Blvd. Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center APPLICANT: Jim Abrahamson Ron Clark Sign Source North Coast Partners, LLP 7660 Quattro Drive 7500 West 78' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55439 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 1.58 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: Ifl The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD amendment must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Arboretum Shopping Center provides neighborhood commercial uses for the adjacent residential properties to the north and east, as well as retail services to motorists on Highway 5. Because the abutting parcels to the north are residential, signage was prohibited along West 78°i Street. In lieu of signage on along West 78`h Street, a 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign was permitted along Highway 5 to advertise the businesses in the strip mall (Lot 1) north of the Amstar gas station. The proprietors of the strip mall would like to increase their visibility and ability to advertise by adding an electronic message center on the existing monument sign. SCANNED Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 2 of 5 ADJACENT ZONING: The property to the north is zoned Planned Unit Development (Arboretum Shopping Center PUD 2003-06). The property to the south, across Highway 5, is zoned Planned Unit Development (Arboretum Business Park 6`h PUD 92-6). The property to the east is zoned Planned Unit Development (Vasserman Ridge PUD 2002-02) and contains a multi -tenant commercial and office building. The property to the west, across Century Boulevard, is zoned Planned Unit Development (Arboretum Village PUD 99-2). APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 2, Amendments Arboretum Shopping Center Design Standards (PUD 2003-06) BACKGROUND The site is located north of Highway 5, east of Century Boulevard and south of West 78th Street. Access to the site is gained via a full curb cut off of West 7e Street and a right in/out off of Century Boulevard. On July 28, 2003, City Council approved the replatting of Outlot D of Arboretum Village into Lots I & 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center (Subdivision 2003-08). The City Council also adopted the following sign criteria: Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 3 of 5 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 -foot setback from the property lines. it a Ln P WEST ?3T1STREET r ---------------------_----I i I 1 I I I I I I � I I 4, 3. ❑: r------------- ___---� I BLOCK 1 I I I I I O 2 l` J Subject i Sign I STATE TRUFIV 'HIGHWAY .._. ,. Although the subject sign is located on Lot 2 which is owned by Century Gas LLC, North Coast Partners, LLP (property owners of Lot 1) owns the sign and has an easement on Lot 2 for the location of the sign. As stated in the design standards, signage is prohibited along West 78th Street. ANALYSIS North Coast Partners, LLP (Lot 1) is requesting an amendment to the sign criteria for Arboretum Shopping Center to allow a portion of the existing 10 -foot tall, 48 square -foot monument sign to be converted into an LED motion sign. The intent of the request is to allow greater advertising and visibility for the businesses on Lot 1, Block 1 Arboretum Shopping Center. Other than the existing monument sign, Lot 1 has limited visibility along Highway 5. The height and display area of the sign will not change; however, four of the existing tenant panels will be replaced by the proposed LED sign. The sign display area of the proposed LED sign will occupy 25% of the total sign display area. Given the ability to provide advertising for the strip center, the use of temporary signage for Lot 1 is prohibited and all temporary advertising is restricted to the proposed LED motion sign. As previously stated, the subject sign is located on Lot 2 (Century Gas, LLC). However, it is owned, operated, and for the benefit of the business located on Lot 1(North Coast Partners, LLP). North Coast Partners will provide an opportunity for Lot 2 to utilize the motion sign if they choose to do so. This would be a separate agreement between the property owners. Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 4 of 5 72.00" 72" 25^ Existing Sign Proposed Sign There are standards for motion signs within the city's sign ordinance which will act as a guideline to develop standards for Arboretum Shopping Center. Proposed Amendment e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: L No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. ii. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. Arboretum Shopping Center September 2, 2008 Page 5 of 5 v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right- of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vu. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot L 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 -foot setback from the property lines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria, to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign, as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report." ATTACIIMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Proposed Sign Schematic. 4. Amended Arboretum Shopping Center PUD. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. g:\plan\2008 planting ca \08-17 a[boRWm shopping cenW minor pud amendmenlWboretwi slapping cents slaa'repoN.doc Adopted 7/28/03 Amended 9/22/08 EXHIBIT C ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. A specific lighting and sign plan shall be submitted prior to final plat. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant (no drive-thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 7 variance was granted by the City Council Hard Surface Commercial 70% 68.3% Parking Setback if screening is provided 10 feet 10 feet d. Building Materials and Design C-1 COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Brick shall be used as the principal material and must be approved to assure uniformity with the residential uses. 2. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials. 3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 4. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 5. All buildings on the commercial site shall have a pitched roof line. 6. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. it. Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non -electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special C-2 effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vu. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall Mounted Signs 1. Building "A" shall be permitted signage along the south and west elevations only. 2. Building "B" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 3. The gas pump canopy shall not be permitted to have any signage. 4. The carwash shall be permitted to have one sign along the south or east elevation. 5. All signs require a separate permit. 6. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 9. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. gAp1an12008planning cases\0g-17 arboretum shopping center minor pud amendment\pud 03-6 design standards revised 9-22-08.doc C-3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/29/2008 3:04 PM Receipt No. 0079658 CLERK: katie PAYEE: SIGNSOURCE PLANNING CASE #08-17 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 81.00 Total Cash Check 21663 Change 81.00 0.00 81.00 0.00 SCANNED SIGN yOURCE INC. 21663 City of Chanhassen 8/25/2008 Date Type Reference 8/25/2008 Bill Arboretum Shopping Regular Checking Acc Planning Case #08-17 Original Amt. Balance Due Discounl 81.00 81.00 Check Amount Payment 81.00 81.00 81.00 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 00F (952) 227-1100 ramal To: Jim Abrahamson Sign Source 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice Re: Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment — Planning Case 08-17 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 8/21/08 upon receipt NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for September 2, 2008. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #08-17. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 08-17 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City1fall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow an LED motion sign and increase squarefootageofpermitted sign on property located at 7755 Century Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center). Applicant: Sign Source & North Coast Partners, LLP. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci,chanhas5P,ji-mn.us/serYZ plan/08-17.html or at City Hall during regular business hours. AR interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: __ th(d i nhassemmn+- Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, August 21, 2008: No. 4104) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Mark Weber, being duly swom, on oath says that he is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. - ) I C i was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghilkhnnopgtstuvwxyz Mark Weber Subscribed and sworn before me on this -1 ) .' day of '' t t l t I, ek , 2008 7LAURIEA Ftev�--- nlA & Y„�Ny� aOrA o Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximtun rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... S 12.19 per column inch SCANNED Phone call received 11:50 am on Monday, August 11, 2008 from Bill Goth with MnDot. MnDot has no comments or issues regarding the minor PUD amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center to allow an LED motion sign to an existing pylon. G`o I`1 SCANNED Page I of I Jim Abrahamson From: Auseth, Angie [aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: Century Plaza Good morning Jim, 1 have a couple of questions regarding the application for Century Plaza PUD Amendment. First, our records show the owner to be Century Gas LLC, and the application shows Northcoast... Can you please verify the owner. The owner must also sign the Development Review application; a faxed signed copy would be fine. Second, we had discussed a new check in the amount of $300, 1 just wanted to check on the status of that, has it been mailed? We will then return the other check upon receipt of the new one. Please let me know if you have any questions. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.d.chanhassen.mn.us SCANNED 8/5/2008 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/08/2008 2:18 PM Receipt No. 0078322 CLERK: katie PAYEE: SignSource Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-17 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 100.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Total Cash Check 21527 Change 300.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 SCANNED SIGN SOURCE INC. City of Chanhassen Date Type Reference 8/5/2008 Bill NorthCoast Partners Regular Checking Acc 8/5/2008 Original Amt. Balance Due Discount 300.00 300.00 Check Amount 21527 Payment 300.00 300.00 300.00 ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER MINOR PUD AMENDMENT - PLANNING CASE 08-17 $100 Minor PUD Amendment $200 Notification Sign $300 TOTAL $300 SignSource Attracta Paid Check 21527 *CANNED Date: August 4, 2008 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Angie Auseth, Planner I (952-227-1132) Subject: Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow an LED motion sign and increase square footage of permitted sign on property located at 7755 Century Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center). Applicant: Sign Source & North Coast Partners, LLP. Planning Case: 08-17 PID: 25-0690020 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on July 31, 2008. The 60 -day review period ends September 29, 2008. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on September 2, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than August 22, 2008. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment 7755 Century Boulevard Planning Case 2008-17 SCtiv'�L.;: PID# 250690020 5 ♦ A', r ftpy,3 2008, G rarer Canty, Hinnesota , 158 Legend [Parcel information Properly Address:Taxpayer information: (&sarallY 7755 CENTURY BLVD CENTURY GAS LLC gla(ry1 CHANHASSEN, MN 7755 CENTURY BLVD �/ etlpgs CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 Nb11 Parcel Properties fryw ./GIS r�01� Acres: 1.5813336 /• orb* Homestead: N School District: 0112 Mrhhnn ParcelLocation Lakes Section: 09Plat loformatime: parcels Township: 116 ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER Caa 2005 Range: 023 Lot -002 Block -001 Payable Year 2009 Last Sale Information Sale Date: 12/162004 Est Market Value Land: $693900 Sale Price: $16000 Est Market Value Building: $606700 QuaBfred(Unquali0ed: UNQUALIFIED SALE Map Created: 8-4-2008 Est Market Value Total: $1300600 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various CityCounty, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for my inaccuracies contained herein. SCtiv'�L.;: Refurbished Existing Sign w/ Electronic Display signs Option B 32. 97" 1 65 Depth of electronic signs back to back will be roughly 15 inches. Depth of Existing sign is 14 inches. Electronic signs will protrude out roughly 2 inches on each side from existing sign face. 5 ft 9.00 in APPROVED AS IS: - 13"Deep per : IEDvncn. ED color. E eco„wrerwnw oecommlme.... no Mn Pawer WH,Ix Gelanye AF-3200/AF-3400 Outdoor Display Communication Kit Galexy(lifGelexyPra® External Temperature Sensor Venue®1500 y3 Software GelexyM 20mm Monochrome Outdoor LED Metrix Dlepley-3400 Series V Pixels NO by 80 Pleats Ipq 20. Comm FED "SHADES 2 V.w - SIn91e Sedon So 11Yyree. For"gX.I . so bap.e. v.nlcM 2 e' H x v 9' W x oe' o A,,S.. Dimensions) 470 Max Wssaxi U.,.,d IX he Per face', Prhepa0220 be Oer lace Choose One of the Following Communication Methods RS232. RS422, Fiber, Wire Ethernet. or Fiber Ethernet External Temperature Sensor with Ouick Connect 1 0 0 Venus®1500 x3 installation CD-ROM 1 With Licensing For One (t) PC. Refer to SL -03101 for OS requirements. PLEASE CHANGE AND RESUBMIT: (oo..,: Rmmmliescs Chief. 10157 herself. limlEdhaumn ovil'ar: XanwBemon He IN: ❑A1 �Mnln hlx Mane: (ene111NI8ele6APA Mile Type: idsoul. She l'. kelaywl 512.2: ft8.00in her 1: M Faol 7: I, Feel 3. e (oto Q x Color G) Xx (do © " rear, Con n underwnlers LLaboratories this s5uu IN ACCORIDANCE wlrx THE H EC, Ards LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES Pen 0 rr Pon 0 Pon 0 Pan 0 Pon 0 Pan 0 'r Pon 0 r S GNSOURCE 7660 Oueiiro Drive (MJmnm, 111155317 Pho..:952,908,9127 • fox: 957.908 9169 kefurbiohed Existing Sign w/ Electronic Display signs Option 8 97" 32.00" 05.00` Depth of electronic signs back to back will be roughly 1 a inches. Depth of Existing sign is 14 inches. Electronic signs will protrude out roughly 2 inches on each side from existing sign face. 5 ft 9.00 in 8"Deep per sign AF -3400 -32x80 -20 -A -2V Galaxy® 20mm Monochrome 1 Temperature Sensor Outdoor LED Matrix Display -3400 - •:�mbe.m.zwzeo Series Matrix: 32 pixels high by e0 pixels long Pixel Pitch: 20.00mm LED Color RED - 64 SHADES Face Configuration: 2 View - Single Section View Angle: 90 degrees Horizontal x 40 degrees Vertical Cabinet Dimensions: 28" H X 5'9'* W X Us" D (Approx. Dimensions) Max Power: 470 Max Watts/face Weight: Unpackaged 130 lbs per face: Packaged 220 Ins per face Galaxy® AF-3200/AF-3400 Choose One of the Following 1 Outdoor Display Communication Methods RS232, Communication Kit RS422, Fiber, Wire Ethernet, or Fiber Ethernet Galaxy®/GalaxyPro& External External Temperature Sensor with Temperature Sensor Quick Connect Venus® 1500 v3 Software Venus® 1500 v3 Installation CD-ROM 1 File Loc: With Licensing For One (1) PC. Refer color D to SL -03101 for OS requirements. APPROVEDPRODUCTION WILL NOT BEGIN UNTIL i L L SIGNED APPROVAL IS FAXED BACK 01111AM113111111 2 ft 5.00 in Underwriters Laboratories Inc. INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE N.E.C. AND LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES. (ustomer: Penlmm Land (a Order k: 10751 i ProjedMngr: Jim Abrahamson Designer: Korey McDermott File Loc: ❑ A 7 File Name: (enlury (and Refudl Sgna Sign Type: Refurbished sign w/ &tank Displays Size l: Size 2: See layout xx Font 1: xx Font 2: xx Font 3: xx color D n Color OD xx Color © xx Color (DD xx Part 0 ° Part 0 ° n Part 0 ° n Part 0 ° n Part 0 ° n Port 0 n n Part 0 ° ° Part0 ° u /0"SIGNsouRCE ATTRACTA 7660 Quattro Drive w Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952.908.9127 • Fax: 952.908.9169 ns Refurbished Existing Sign w/ Electronic Oioplaysigno Depth of electronic ofExiaingsigckwi116eroughly1Binches. Depth of Existing sign is 14 inches. Option A Electronic signs will protrude out roughly 2 inches on each side from existing sign face. ,32,00' L_ 9%n 65.00" xiH--9 nn In APPROVED AS IS: - 8"Deep per sign AF -3000 -32x80 -20 -A -2V MMdx'. P1.1 PM D: LEDCokr'. Fxa C.Akur.lbn: Viw MqM: Cealrnr Dlmmaons: IA., Power Weiam. Gelexy0 AF-32007AF-3400 Outdcor Display Communroatlon Kit Gelaxy&GalexyPro® External Temperature Sensor Venus* 1500 v3 Software GelexyO 2Dmm Monochrome 1 Outdoor LED Matrix DlsplayJ000 Serlaa 32 anma high Ay No RLai. Iaeg YJWmm AMBER'9x SHADES 2 r.w empe semen 0o cre, eae HoazcMel x AD dermas vamcEl 2 e" H x 5 a- W z 0' 6' D rMwm. DimenWnq aro Max Wumnece unuscre 0 ISD to. aermce, Pacxega 2m as 1a11-" Choose One of Me Following Communication Methods RS232, RS422, Fiber, Wire Ethernet, or Fiber Ethernet External Temperature Sensor with 1 Quick Connect Vanuae 15M v3 installation CD-ROM With Licensing For One (1) PC. Refer to SL -03101 for OS requirements. PLEASECHANG[ AND RESUBMIT: EiRkANr: Rnlom Ind Lo Ordrf 1061 PreRMsq. Ino lhnhenwn Miss, Inn, Mannon P9a tar. ❑A7 McRYSKar OMMaM: so., led Baht, H,A Sir TIRE Mdnklisl v r/Heft.&** Are I: Word gn 2'. 2 ft 8.00 in Has I,, rr W 2: n ARTS u We (D u !alar Qe r ._. CAIRO u law po n UMewores, LBberMriters QQ IT, INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WMI THE aE C. AND LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES. Pil P, ° Pan 0 v Pon 0 ,. Part 0 " Pon 0 Pan 0 II Pon 0 Pon 0 ' ��NSOURCE 7660 Qatar, Orive a Dlnnhassen, MX 55317 Phone: 952908 .9127 a Pm: 952908.9169 Refurbished Existing Sign w/ Electronic Display signs Option A Sir 32. 65 Depth of electronic signs back to back will be roughly 18 inches. Depth of Existing sign is 14 inches. Electronic signs will protrude out roughly 2 inches on each side from existing sign face. X; 4* A nn in APPROVED AS IS: 8"Deep per sign AF -3400 -32x80 -20 -A -2V Galaxy® 20mm Monochrome Pattern land (o. Outdoor LED Matrix Display -3400 10757 Series Matrix: 32 pixels high by 80 pixels long Pixel Pitch: 20.00mm LED Color. AMBER- 64 SHADES Face Configuration: 2 View - Single Section View Angle: 90 degrees Horizontal x 40 degrees Vertical Cabinet Dimensions: 2'8' H X 5'9"W X 0'8' D (Approx. Dimensions) Max Power. 470 Max Watts/face Weight: Unpackaged 130 be per face: Packaged 220 Has per face Galaxy® AF-3200/AF-3400 Choose One of the Following Outdoor Display Communication Methods RS232, Communication Kit RS422, Fiber, Wire Ethernet, or Fiber xx Ethernet Galaxy@/GalaxyPro® External External Temperature Sensor with Temperature Sensor Quick Connect Venus@ 1500 V3 Software Venus® 1500 v3 Installation CD-ROM 1 r - With Licensing For One (1) PC. Refer ° to SL -03101 for OS requirements. PLEASE CHANGE AND RESUBMIT: ft 45.00 in Underwriters Laboratories Inc. INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE N.E.C. AND LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES. Drawing Da908 1 Re 1 (ustomer: Pattern land (o. Order fr. 10757 Project Mngc Jim Abrahamson Designer: Korey McDermolt File Loc ❑ A-7 ® Korey s Mat File Name: (enlury Land Relurb Sign.m Sign Type: Relurblshed sign w/ Flectrooir Displuys Size 1: See Layout Size 2: xx Font 1: xx Font 2: xx Font 3: xx Color(A) xx Color © XK �. (alar © 1° C Color (DD xx LOM 1 r - Pori 0 ° a Part 0 ° a Part 0 ° n Part 0 ° n Part 0 n a Part 0 a a Part 0 n a Pari 0 n n Adibitional Production X ��NSOURCE ATTRACTA 7660 Quattro Drive • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952.908.9127 • Fax: 952.908.9169 This drawing property of r r Attracla, Inc. and may notbe used, reproduced or disclosed r authorization. JUL-30-2008 08:50 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION Date: 7—se ' d TO: FROM: TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL SHEET "� _Z7 4 s z Q' OY- q14 (952) 947-3000 (OFFICE) P.01 CONSTRUCTION 75M West 78th Street Edina, Mumesola 56499 (952) 947000 fax (952) 947.3030 (952) 947-3030 (FA}-) NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMTI"PED (NOT INCLUDING'THIS COVER SHEET) REMARKS: t.A� 4-107& L If you should experience any difficulty with this transmission, please contact Ron Clark Construction at (952) 947-3000. Cunstnxtion and Design MN Builder License k 0001220 http: //www.RonClarkrom SCANNED JUL-30-2008 08:51 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION Prepared For, Sign Source I Attracts Lout ModHWd: 7880 Quattro Drive Chanhassen MM S�GNsOURCE U ttRAGi 455317 Ph: (952) 9975.9 0 FAX: (952) 97592(19 ,�, Email: randyh@sgn-source.com Emil: Web: www.sign-source-Com Estimate #: 12549 Page 1 of 2 Creabd Data: July 24, 2006 Prepared For, Ron Clark Construction Lout ModHWd: July 24, 2008 Proof Due Daft; 1 9alaaperaon: Jim Abrahamson ConteaL Bryan Monahan ,PM of Commenual Dmi Emil: Pma&ign-source.am Office Phone: (952) 947-3051 Of a Phare: (952) 9011.9106 Office Fax: (952) 947.3052 Olnce Fax: (952) 908. 9W Emall: blyannrre nilark.com Entered by: Terry Heydt Address: 75W W. 76th Street Film. UN SSlia Description: Requots LED and sign Changes Dear Bryan, Thank you for allow" us to provide you With an Estimate for this project. If you have any questions about this estimate, please feel free to call me at 952-908-9106, or you can reach me on my Cell phone at 612-9645165 Regards, Jim Abrahamson § , $655 50 $655 50 OeaCription:Remove cabinet sign and (Xing a back to 5ign Soums to refurbish and add the LED display unify • Work At Address: Century Blvd arid hey 5 Chanhassen • Price assumes primary Wrino to sign is 120 voit H appliuhlo • Flnel aWctrlcal connection and pop 11 are addlHon it unto" specified as Included. Quantity Unit Price SubtaW 61 $830.50 $830 50 Descrlptlon:Reino}all refurbshed cabinet sign On 0xistirg columns Phahe Il" for the LED display communication by others. • Walk At AddressCeMury Blvd and H" 5 C:tu n hassen • Puce assumes PAmIV wfrIN to elfin la 120 vole H apptiCablo • Flnal electrical Connection and pormite aro additional unleas %Wtftd as Included Print Date' 7f29r20p8 4:24:06PM Ouerttity Unit Price Subtotal '' 1 $725.00 $725.00 DescNpUon:Permit • 1x) Conditional use permit Quwdhy Unit Price Subtefal 2 1 $250.00 $250.00 Dascrlpt{on: Permil • 1x) Sign permit Quantity Unit Price Subtotal 3 1 $14,8W.00 $14.6116.00 De6000e0n:4 dale Amber dispiey -Overall size Is 89' x 32' x 6' deep. Text size can range from 6" to 25" and up to 16 characters per line_ • tx) 69 h. W x 321x1. H 4 fine Amber diaplay - Double sided Quanft Unit Price Subtotal 4 1 $1,967.01 $1.96701 Descripidon:Refurblsh existing Cabinet - Add LED display to the top of both aides. Lange and electrical repak addhlonal H needed. • 1x) Refurbish existing cabinet Quarift Unit Price Subtotal § , $655 50 $655 50 OeaCription:Remove cabinet sign and (Xing a back to 5ign Soums to refurbish and add the LED display unify • Work At Address: Century Blvd arid hey 5 Chanhassen • Price assumes primary Wrino to sign is 120 voit H appliuhlo • Flnel aWctrlcal connection and pop 11 are addlHon it unto" specified as Included. Quantity Unit Price SubtaW 61 $830.50 $830 50 Descrlptlon:Reino}all refurbshed cabinet sign On 0xistirg columns Phahe Il" for the LED display communication by others. • Walk At AddressCeMury Blvd and H" 5 C:tu n hassen • Puce assumes PAmIV wfrIN to elfin la 120 vole H apptiCablo • Flnal electrical Connection and pormite aro additional unleas %Wtftd as Included Print Date' 7f29r20p8 4:24:06PM JUL-30-2008 08:51 RON -L*K CONSTRUCTION P.03 rSIGNsouRc� Sign Source ! Attracts 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph: (952) 975-41M FAX: (952) 975-9209 Small: randyh(Mslgn-source.com Web: www.sign-souroe.com Shipping & handhdg, if applicable, is additional. All estimated shipping & handling amounts are for referunce only. Actual shipping & handling will be determined at time of shipment. Estimate M 12549 Page 2 of 2 Subtotal: $19,25s.01 Total: $19,258.01 Deposit Required: $9628,01 Reminder due Net MI days sfmr completion. Please pay from Involce.: $9,628.01 Client Reply Request QUOTES AND ESTIMATE ARE GOOD FOR 30 DAYS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE Acceptance of Tania: All new customers will be required to pay by cash, check, money order or credit card, prior to the order being delivered Customers who would like to establish credit with our company should request a credit appfkation from their salesperson. Once credit has been established, the at tomer will be billed on a Net 30 Day basis. On larger projects, we may request a down payment or a Progressive payment schedule. x EsUmste Accepted "As Is Please proceed w"h Order. ❑ Other. 42 , —,q4 n ❑ Chengas required, please contact me. SIGN: Date: / 136,o Print Date7/2912008 4 24:MPM Page 1 of 5 Jim Abrahamson From: Ron Clark [ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:44 AM To: Jim Abrahamson; Dan Herbst; Bryan Monahan Cc: Marge Miller; Mark Bollig Subject: RE: Century Plaza Jim, Bryan is out this week so I am responding to your email to keep this sign matter rolling. I have signed and faxed to you your proposal to fabricate and install the new LED sign. Also if it matters for your application, Century Plaza is not owned by Ron Clark Construction but is owned by another of my entities, North Coast Partners LLP, 7500 West 78th Street, Edina, Mn. 55439 Thanks and let me know if you need anything further. Ron Clark RonClark,a RonClark.com Ron Clark Construction & Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 Minnesota Business Ethics Award! -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:19 PM To: Dan Herbst; Bryan Monahan Cc: Marge Miller; Ron Clark; Mark Bollig Subject: RE: Century Plaza Joe qq Ron thanks for the call, I have attached the latest drawing and will send the estimate separately. I will have Korey add the red or amber LED note prior to going to the city. Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com 7/30/2008 SCANNED Page 2 of 5 -----Original Message ----- From: Dan Herbst [mailto:danherbst@pemtom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:50 PM To: Jim Abrahamson; 'Bryan Monahan' Cc: 'Marge Miller'; 'Ron Clark'; 'Mark Bollig' Subject: RE: Century Plaza Those shots have to be called by the Clark crew. dan -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:37 PM To: Dan Herbst; Bryan Monahan Cc: Marge Miller; Ron Clark; Mark Bollig Subject: RE: Century Plaza Just need someone to say they will pay for the fees if we start this permit and conditional use permit thru the city. Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justin Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com -----Original Message ----- From: Dan Herbst [mailto:danherbst@pemtom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:30 PM To: Jim Abrahamson; 'Bryan Monahan' Cc: 'Marge Miller'; 'Ron Clark'; 'Mark Bollig' Subject: RE: Century Plaza I am in the deal. What can I do? -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:53 PM 7/30/2008 SCANNED Page 3 of 5 To: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst Subject: FW: Century Plaza FYI see below. I will need a answer or we will not make the deadline. Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie[mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us7 Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:26 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: RB: Century Plaza Thanks Jim, I have you down for the August 19th Planning Commission meeting and the September 8th City Council meeting agendas, pending Friday's submittal. Please let me know if this changes. Best regards, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 �.► Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] 7/30/2008 Page 4 of 5 Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:43 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst Subject: RE: Century Plaza Hi Angie, Thanks for the reply and I will send it over asap if the customer is ready. Bryan do you want to move forward with this? If so I will need a signed drawing and should get a down payment to get this to the city for approval. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinasQsign-source.com -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie[mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.usl Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:38 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: RE: Century Plaza Jim, The sign looks good. The height will not change, correct? Other than that, you will need to get a conditional use permit for the LED portion of the sign. Please let me know what I can help you with; the next submittal deadline is this Friday, August 1, 2008. Best regards, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I %/LGZ1XI.IF:3 Page 5 of 5 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:13 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst Subject: FW: Century Plaza Hi Angie, Please review the attached drawing for the revamp of the existing sign at Century Plaza and let me know if the city staff will support this request. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com -----Original Message ----- From: Korey McDermott Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:05 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: Century Plaza Jim, Here is the proof for Century. K SCANNED 7/30/2008 PARKING, ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the L1 day of May, 2004, by and between Arboretum Exchange LLC ("Arboretum"), a Minnesota limited liability company, and Minnstar Builders, Inc. ("Minnstar"), a Minnesota Corporation. Recitals WHEREAS, Arboretum owns the parcel of land legally described on Exhibit A and made a part hereof and shown as "Lot I" on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof; WHEREAS, Minnstar owns the parcel of land legally described on Exhibit A -I attached hereto and made a part hereof and shown as "Lot 2.. on Exhibit B; WHEREAS, Lots 1 and 2 are herein individually referred to as a "Lot" and collectively referred to as the "Entire Premises"; and WHEREAS, Arboretum and Minnstar desire to establish certain easements in respect to Lots 1 and 2 and to the Entire Premises. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 2. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the term "party" shall refer to any present or future owner or owners of legal or equitable title to all or any portion of the Lots or the Entire Premises, and any mortgagee of the Lots or the Entire Premises , and their respective successors and assigns during any period of ownership. As of the effective date of this Agreement, the Owner of Lot 1 is Arboretum Exchange, LLC and the Owner of Lot 2 is Minnstar Builders, Inc. 3. Ingress and Egress. Each party to this Agreement hereby grants and conveys to the other party, for their use and the use by their respective agents, employees, tenants, contractors, customers and invitees, a non-exclusive easement appurtenant to and for the benefit of each Lot for the ingress and egress by vehicular and pedestrian traffic upon, over and across the parking areas, driveways, curb cuts and sidewalks (collectively, the "Parking and Access Facilities") located on the respective Lots; provided, however, that no material changes, closing or relocation shall occur on the Parking and Access Facilities as depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof without the prior consent of all parties hereto; provided further, that no fence or other barrier which would unreasonably prevent or obstruct the passage of pedestrian or vehicular travel for purposes herein permitted shall be erected or permitted within or across Parking and Access Facilities. 4. Parking. Each party to this Agreement hereby grants and conveys to the other party, for their use and the use by their agents, employees, tenants, contractors, customers and invitees, a non-exclusive easement for vehicular parking on that portion of the Parking and Access Facilities to be developed for parking purposes as shown on the attached Exhibit C, such easement to be appurtenant to and for the benefit of each Lot; provided, however, Minnstar hereby grants and conveys to Arboretum an exclusive easement for employee parking in the fourteen spaces located on the west side of the car wash on Lot 2 and shown cross -hatched on Exhibit C. 5. Indemnification and Insurance. 5.1 Indemnification. Each Owner benefited by any easement or license granted herein shall hold harmless and indemnify the burdened party, its agents, and their respective employees, successors and assigns, from and against all loss, costs, damage, actions, suits, judgments and expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or due to, the use by such benefited Owner or its employees, agents, contractors, invitees or permittees, of the easement or license, except to the extent due to or a result of, the negligence or willful misconduct of the burdened Owner or its employees, agents, contractors, invitees or permittees. 5.2 Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance against claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in or upon such Owner's property and appurtenant easements, including contractual liability coverage for claims made pursuant to the indemnity provisions of this Agreement, in such amounts as may be carried from time to time by prudent owners of similar properties in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, but in all events to afford protection for limits of not less than $2,000,000.00 combined single limit for bodily injury or property damage. At the request of an Owner from time to time, the other Owner shall provide the requesting Owner a certificate of insurance evidencing that the coverages required hereunder are in force. All polices used to provide the coverage required by this Agreement shall (a) be endorsed to require the insurer to provide at least ten (10) days notice to the other Owner prior to cancellation, substantial modification, or non -renewal, and (b) be issued by financially sound companies having an A.M.* Best Company rating of at least ANIL Each Owner shall name the other Owner as additional insured under all such policies. 6. Maintenance. Except as provided in paragraph 7 below, each party shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Parking and Access Facilities on its Lot at all times in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris. Arboretum shall maintain the road located on the adjacent property (the `Adjacent Drive") providing ingress and egress to West 78`h Street shown on Exhibit D in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris until such time a building permit is issued for construction upon the adjacent property, at which time maintenance for the Adjacent Drive shall revert to the owner of the adjacent property. Minnstar shall be responsible for one-half ('/) of the costs incurred by Arboretum in so maintaining the Adjacent Drive, which shall be payable within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice from Arboretum for the amount due. 7. Common Drive. Arboretum shall maintain the area depicted as the "Common Drive" on Exhibit C in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris. Minstar shall be responsible for one-half (Y) of the costs incurred by Arboretum in so maintaining the Common Drive, which shall be payable within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice from Arboretum for the amount due. 8. Utility Easement. Each party hereby grants and conveys to the other party an easement for utility purposes over, on, across, under and through the Entire Premises, together with the right of ingress to and egress from the Lots for the purpose of inspecting, repairing and maintaining any and all utilities. 9. Monument Sign. Minnstar hereby grants and conveys to Arboretum an easement on Lot 2 for the purpose of erecting and utilizing a monument sign (the "Monument Sign") in a 10' by 20' area in the location depicted on the attached Exhibit C (the "Sign Easement Area"). The Monument Sign shall be solely utilized, operated and maintained by Arboretum. Arboretum may also use the Sign Easement Area for installing and maintaining a "Retail Space for Lease" boulevard sign to be used as needed and at the sole discretion of Arboretum. 10. Legal Effect. Each of the easements and rights created by this Agreement are perpetual (except as specifically stated herein) and are appurtenant to the Entire Premises, and run with the land, and may not be transferred, assigned or encumbered except as an appurtenance to such properties. Each covenant contained in this .Agreement constitutes a covenant running with the land. Each Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 covenants and agrees that on conveyance of all or any part of the fee title to either Lot 1 or Lot 2. the grantee, by accepting such conveyance, will thereby become a new Owner under, and be bound by, this Agreement. On such acceptance and deemed assumption by a grantee, the conveying Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 will thereafter be released from any obligation tinder this Agreement arising thereafter with respect to either Lot 1 or Lot 2 so conveyed. Each Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 agrees, on written request of the conveying Owner, to execute and deliver any appropriate documents or instruments to evidence such release, but failure to obtain such document will not affect the effectiveness of this release. 11. Amendment. This Agreement and any provision herein contained may be terminated, extended, modified or amended only with the express written consent of the then current Owners of the Entire Premises. No amendment, modification, extension or termination of this Agreement will affect the rights of the holder of any mortgage constituting a lien on any of the Entire Premises unless such mortgagee consents to the same. No tenant, licensee or other person having only a possessory interest in the improvements on the Entire Premises will be required to join in execution of or consent to any action taken from time to time by the Owners pursuant to this Agreement. 12. Condemnation. If the whole or any part of the Entire Premises is taken for any public or quasi -public use under any governmental law, ordinance or regulation, or by right of eminent domain, any Owner benefited by an easement or covenant created by this Agreement will not share in any award, compensation or other payment made to the Owner of the parcel that was taken by reason of the taking of the parcel or a portion of the parcel which is subject to such easement or covenant and such award, compensation or other payment will belong entirely to the Owner of the parcel or that portion of the parcel to which is taken, and such Owner will have no further liability to any other Owner for the loss of such easements or covenants, or a portion thereof, located on the parcel (or the leasehold interest therein) so taken. 13. Default; Remedies. If any Owner defaults in any obligation requiring the payment of money and fails to cure the default within fifteen (15) days after receiving written notice thereof, or if any Owner defaults in any of its other obligations under any provision hereof and fails to commence such action as is necessary to cure such default within thirty (30) days after written notice of default is given by any nondefaulting Owner, or fails to proceed diligently thereafter to cure such default, the nondefaulting Owner may enforce such obligations by an action at law or suit in equity, or may perform or pay all or any part of such obligations and charge the cost of performing or the payment made, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the defaulting Owner. The nondefaulting Owner is hereby granted a right of entry onto the defaulting Owner's property, with such personnel, materials and equipment as may be necessary for purposes of performing any obligation of the defaulting Owner hereunder that has not been performed within the time allowed. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, in the event of an emergency involving an imminent threat to human health or safety or the likelihood of substantial property damage, the foregoing right of entry may be exercised with only such notice as is practical under the circumstances, which may include notice given after the fact. All indebtedness of an Owner hereunder shall bear interest from the date incurred at a rate per annum equal to 2% in excess of the then reference rate as publicly announced from time to time by U.S. Bank National Association (or any successor national bank), and the indebtedness, interest, and all reasonable costs of suit or collection thereof, including reasonable attornevs' fees, whether suit be brought or not, with interest on all such costs at the rate above set forth, shall be payable on demand of the creditor, and shall be enforceable by any remedy then available at law or in equity. In addition, without the act or deed of any Owner, any such indebtedness, interest and costs shall constitute a lien against the property owned by the defaulting Owner from and after the date the notice of such lien is filed in the same office in Carver County, Minnesota in which this Agreement is filed. Such lien shall be enforceable in the same manner as a lien for labor and materials pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 514, as the same may be amended. Failure to enforce any covenants hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 14. Lien Subordinate to Mortgage - Any lien granted hereby to secure any obligations of an Owner shall be subordinate to the lien of any mortgage now or hereafter placed upon either Lot I or Lot 2; provided, however, that such subordination shall apply only to the obligations which have become due and payable prior to a sale or transfer of such property or leasehold interest pursuant to a decree of foreclosure, or any other proceeding in lieu of foreclosure, and the expiration of any redemption period. Such sale or transfer shall not relieve such property from liability for any obligations thereafter becoming due, nor from any lien of any such subsequent obligations. 15. No Rieht to Terminate Due to Breach. No breach of this Agreement will entitle any Owner to cancel, rescind or otherwise terminate this Agreement provided that the foregoing limitation will not affect, in any manner, any other right or remedy which any Owner might have by reason of any breach of this Agreement. 16. Miscellaneous. 16.1 Notices. All notices, communications, demands and requests permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when personally delivered, when delivered to a reliable and recognized overnight courier or messenger service which provide receipts of delivery or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope sent by registered or certified mail with postage prepaid, addressed as follows or to such other address as is set forth in a notice given in accordance with this Section: If to Arboretum Exchange: with copy to: If to Minnstar Builders: with copy to: c/o Ron C'ark 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota 55439 Fax # 952.947.3030 Foley & Mansfield 250 Marquette Avenue Suite 1200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax # 612.338.8788 Ron Clark 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota 55439 Fax # 952.947.3030 Foley & Mansfield 250 Marquette Avenue Suite 1200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax # 612.338.8788 16.2 Separate Mortgages. The Owners benefitted by any easement created hereby and any Owner owning property subject to any easement created hereby shall have the right separately to create mortgages, deeds of trust, or other liens upon their separate estates, such estates being subject to and together with the easements and other covenants created herein. 16.3 Estoppel Certificates: Each Owner shall, within 15 days after receiving a written request from another Owner, which requests may be made from time to time but no more than three times in any 12 -month period, issue an estoppel certificate addressed to such Owners as may be specified by the requesting Owner stating: (a) whether the Owner to whom the request had been directed knows of any default under this Agreement, and if there are known defaults, specifying the nature thereof; (b) whether, to the Owner's knowledge, this Agreement has been modified or amended in any way (and, if it has, identifying such amendments or modifications); (c) that, to the Owner's knowledge, this Agreement is in full force and effect as of the date of the estoppel certificate, or if not, then so stating; (d) the nature and extent of any setoffs, claims or defenses then being asserted or otherwise known by the Owner against enforcement of such Owner's obligations hereunder; (e) whether, and for what amount, the Owner executing such certificate is then claiming a right to reimbursement from the Owner requesting such certificate; and (f) such other matters as may reasonably be required. Any such estoppel certificate shall act as a waiver of any claim by the Owner executing it against the Owner or Owners to whom such certificate is addressed, to the extent such claim is based upon facts contrary to those asserted in the certificate and to the extent the claim is asserted against a bona fide encumbrancer or purchaser for rent without knowledge of facts contrary to those contained in the statement, who has acted in reasonable reliance upon the certificate; however, such certificate shall in no event subject the Owner furnishing it to any liability whatsoever, unless the certificate was given in bad faith. 16.4 No Dedication. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of all or any portion of the easements herein granted, or any thereof, to or for the general public, it being the Owners' intention that such easements be for the exclusive benefit of the Owners. 16.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is, to any extent, declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement (or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those in respect of which the determination of invalidity or unenforceability was made) will not be affected thereby and each provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 16.6 Further Liability Limitation. Under this Agreement, the liability of and their respective successors and assigns will be limited to their respective interests in the Property and the Adjacent Property, respectively. 16.7 No Merger. If an Owner owns both the fee interest in the Property and the Adjacent Property, then this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 16.8 Goveming Laws. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota. 16.9 Time is of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 16.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, any or all of which may contain the signature of only one of the Owners, and all of which will be construed together as a single instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Arboretum Exchange, LLC and Minnstar Builders, Inc. have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. By: GE By: Name: ?6BgAe b fi , CCAA,(, MINNSTAR BUILDERS, INC. / By: t �kaXa� Name: s,vA ci�. oE, C cA24 Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) JPOUAM a COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SPIIQ�VI The fore oing . strument was acknoWle a before me this 2%t day of May, 2004, by __ T5 � 5 Mk , the of Arboretum Exchange, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behaft of the company. Basilikoula E. Getting Allen County Resident My Commission Expires April 2, 2011 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public T e fore oing �r �� ent was acknowled ed before me this Ida of May, 2004, by I ,4 y�, the 605. of Minstar y Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: Basilikoula E. Oetting FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. Allen County Resident 250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200 My Commission Expires April 2, 2011 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 EXHIBIT A Lot 1 Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota EXHIBIT A-1 Lot 2 Legal Description Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota '_________� Mist I r_____________ I 06't0i 191 I SO I A I I I I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I rl 1 i I I I I I I. I 1 I" C*q I fn+ I 1 i 1 �l I I W I I I 7 i i 9 liSIHXg I iE o'_i gs � � ''sff L'¢11i11 6 5y ! �0i 4 �l IV I 7 I LL I I �..ysCapg� a{{.j \ •1 It s H W 9 liSIHXg BUILDING A RETAIL - 'mA BUILDING "B" z COFFEE SHOP & F.' SHELLSTORE m D J1 I .4p 11 a ds City Council Summary —July 2$, 2003 A. B. q�- Z PUD 03,2 Cl?P bZ-Z PUO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU. Public Present: Name Address Michael Thomas 548 Apollo Drive, Lino Lakes Scott Schmitt 24 So. Olive Street, Waconia Kathleen Heller 4536 35® Avenue, Minneapolis David & Jenn Forbes 437 Shakopee Avenue E, Shakopee Kate Aanenson reviewed the action from last meeting and what staff had done preparing criteria for a drive thru. She showed comparable drive thm locations from Eden Prairie and the stacking associated with those. The applicant was available to answer questions. Councilman Peterson stated he liked the proposal with the exception of the drive thru. Councilman Ayotte stated he was leaning towards approving the drive thm with some reservations. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification that a drive thin could be located in other zoning districts of town. Councilman Lundquist stated he was in favor of the proposal with the exception of the drive thru. Mayor Furlong stated his position hadn't changed from the last meeting in that the city should either allow drive thm's in the area or not, and it should not be dependent on what type of business it is. He also asked for staff clarification on the location of the crosswalk into the site. In discussing it with public safety, they felt there was going to be people using that area as a crosswalk anyway so it might as well have a crosswalk and sidewalk to make it safe. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment in the commercial portion of Arboretum Village, clarifying parking setbacks and establish sign criteria for both Arboretum Village and Vasserman Ridge, contingent upon approval of the final plat of Arboretum Shopping Center as follows: ARBORETUM VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT WITHOUT DRIVE THRU Arboretum Village (1992-2 PUD) PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS b. Permitted Uses SCANNED City Council Summary — July 28, 2003 The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurants (no drive thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 7 Variance granted by City Council Hard Surface Commercial 70% 68.3% Parking Setback if screening is provided 10 feet 10 feet e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall Mounted Signs 1. Building "A" shall be permitted signage along the south and west elevations only. 2. Building "B" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 3. The gas pump canopy shall not be permitted to have any signage. 4. The carwash shall be permitted to have one sign along the south or east elevation. 5. All signs require a separate permit. 6. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. City Council Summary – July 28, 2003 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 9. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided Prior to requesting a sign permit. Vasserman Ridge (2002_2 PUD); PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. - --,u —,,..... weer From Exterior Lot Lines 50 feet 50 feet ---- Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 30 feet Hard Surface Commercial 30 feet 60 feet Parking Setback It screening is 70% Not available at this time provided 10 feet 10 feet e. Sign Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 3 will have one monument sign facing Highway 5. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with a maximum area of 24 square feet. 2. The base of the sign shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and compliment their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall Mounted Signs 1. Building "C" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 2• All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 4. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. 5. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 6. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Summary — July 28, 2003 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2003-2 CUP to allow the construction of a convenience store with gas pumps on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, with the following conditions: 1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises. 2. No repay, assembly or disassembly of vehicles. 3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel. 4. Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the city shall not intrude into any required setback area. 5. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles or all -terrain vehicles. 6. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided. 7. Gas pumps and/or storage tank vent pipes shall not be located within one hundred (100) feet of any parcel zoned or guided for residential use. 8. All light fixtures under the canopy shall be recessed into the canopy and screened. The canopy must be constructed of an opaque material to prevent light from shining through. 9. For Phase I, approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the' following applications: a. PUD Amendment 1992-2 PUD. b. Site Plan Review 2003-6. C. Subdivision 2003-8. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat to replat Outlot D, Arboretum Village and Lot 1, Block 4, Vasserman Ridge (4.79 acres), 2003-8 SUB into three lots as shown on plans dated June 4, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall provide a cross access and cross parking agreement for the three parcels. 2. The following park dedication charges will apply: Lot 1- $8,540; Lot 2- $11,620; and Lot 3 - $13,650 which shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 3. The total SWW fees of $58,824.57 are due payable to the city at time of final plat recording. 4. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will N City Council Summary - July 28, 2003 also be required to enter into a development contract with the city and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan Review 2003.6 SPR for the construction of three multi -tenant buildings, one of which contains a convenience store with gas pumps and coffee shop, and a car wash as shown in plans prepared by Damberg, Scott, Gerzina, Wagner Architects dated Received May 16, 2003, subject to the following conditions: Correct the driveway dimensions on the site plan (Sheet AO) to read 26 feet in width. Also, dimension the tum lane widths and taper ratios. The taper ratio for the West 781h Street tum lane shall be a minimum of 5:1. 2. On the grading plan: a. Increase the rock construction entrance to a minimum of 75 feet in length per City Detail No. 5301. b. Revise the existing 980 contour that crosses with another illegible contour on the existing topography. Likewise, correct the proposed 978 crossing contour lines. C. Provide erosion control blankets on the steep slopes along the west side of the entrance drive and along the east side of the Phase 11 building. d. Revise the boulevard slope in the West 780' Street right-of-way to a maximum grade of 2% within 15 feet of the cmbline. e. Provide emergency overflows for catch basin nos. 3 and 4. The overflow elevation must be a minimum of one foot lower than the finished floor elevation of the adjacent building. f. Show all existing and proposed easements. g. Show the existing pond to the east of the site and include the NWL and HWL. Also, show the existing storm sewer in the pond area. h. Show the proposed lot and block numbers. i. Limit the number of inlet aprons to the eastern pond of one inlet. j. Add a benchmark to the plan. 3. On the utility plan (Sheet C2): a. Show all proposed utility easements. b. Revise the watermain to loop through the site and connect with the existing main in West 78" Street. C. Show the existing watermain in West 780' Street and the storm sewer in the pond to the east. d. Move sanitary manhole no. 6 into the main drive aisle for access purposes. e. The minimum allowable storm sewer between catch basins is 12 inches in diameter. Revise where necessary. f. All of the public watermam will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary. g. Add street lights at the southeasterly comer of West 78" Street and Century Boulevard and at the proposed driveway connection with West 78'" Street. City Council Summary — July 28, 2003 4. Add all applicable City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to Sheet C3. 5. The applicant will work with staff to determine the best possible location to provide a crosswalk across West 78b Street. The crosswalk will be from the south to the north side of West 78'h Street and connect with the existing bituminous trail and provide the additional sidewalk connection as shown in Attachment #1, as amended. 6. The applicant will work with staff to determine if a "No U Tum" sign will be required at the north end of the median on Century Boulevard and West 78b Street. 7. The silt fence on the east side of the site must be Type III, heavy duty. 8. The property line dimensions for the Phase II parcel must match the final plat for Vasserman Ridge. 9. Private easements are required for the storm sewer lines that inn from one lot to another. 10. Show the pavement sections for the bituminous path and private street/drive aisle on the plans. 11. Provide an internal sign to direct cars out to West 781° Street for Highway 5 bound traffic. 12. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 13. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site, however additional information is required. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 14. Minimum 30 foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. 15. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 16. The existing contours for the Phase II portion of the site should reflect the Vasserman Ridge 2°d Addition grading. 17. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440 per unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876 per unit, and the SAC fee is $1,274 per unit. 18. The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street sine it serves multiple lots. As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9 ton design and enclosed within a 40 foot wide private easement. City Council Summary — July 28, 2003 19. Concrete driveway aprons, per City Detail Plate #5207 are required at the two proposed access points to the site. 20. For Phase I, approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the following applications: a. Subdivision 2003-8 SUB. b. PUD Amendment 1999-2 PUD. C. Conditional Use Permit 2003-2 CUP. 21. For Phase II, approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the following applications: a. Subdivision 2003-8 SUB. b. PUD Amendment 2002-2. 22. Landscaping Requirements: Phase I: a. The applicant shall increase plantings to meet minimum requirements for buffer yards, boulevard trees and parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval. b. The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. Phase II: a. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for buffer yards, boulevard trees and parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval. b. The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 23. The applicant shall show the west and north elevations of the car wash. 24. All roof top equipment shall be screened. 25. The trash enclosure shall be built with the same type of materials used on the buildings. 26. The applicant shall introduce a pitched element to Building `B" 27. The parking lot islands shall be increased to 10 feet in width or aeration tubes will be required to be installed. 28. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. 29. Fire Marshal conditions 2 City Council Summary — July 28, 2003 a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. b. `No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required.. Please contact Chanhassen Fire marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted yellow. C. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Copy enclosed. d. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. e. A Post Indicator Valve will be required on the new building that have fire service water coming into the building. f. Submit radius turns and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire marshal for review and approval. g. Phase H. The fire hydrant shown on Building "C" will need to be relocated in front of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 30. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings are required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. C. Building A must have a minimum of 3 accessible parking spaces, one of which must have an 8 foot access aisle. Building C must have a minimum of 5 accessible parking spaces. d. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each piece of property. e. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. f. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 31. The applicant will need to apply for on -sale liquor licenses for the restaurants in Phase Il. 32. Applicant will work with staff on the transparency or breaking up the east and west side of the carwash with the intent that it doesn't necessarily have to be windows. 33. If the drive thm is not carried on with the City Council, that the parking spaces be revisited with staff and the applicant. 34. The right-in/right-out access on Century Boulevard shall be permitted contingent upon MnDot approval. 35. The applicant shall work with staff to review the yellow color on the canopy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 10 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Councilman Peterson: I move that we approve the resolution vacating a portion as presented this evening. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Teresa Burgess: Mr. Mayor, if I could please request, we do need the easement, the conditions of that resolution to be stated with the easements. Councilman Peterson: As presented by staff in the report. Mayor Furlong: Conditions 1 through 3 as presented. Is that sufficient? Teresa Burgess: Yes, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. It's been made and seconded. If there's no discussion, without objection well proceed with the vote. Resolution #2003-66: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating a portion of the public right-of-way on Gooseberry Road as defined in the attached vacation description, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 30 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be retained over the existing sanitary and water lines. 2. A private driveway easement is required for the portion of the driveway for 6900 Lotus Trail that crosses the north half of the vacated right-of-way. 3. The vacation shall include the entire 40 foot wide right-of-way adjacent to 6890 Lotus Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. A. B. PHASE H: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AN OUTLOT INTO 1 LOT VMM AN DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Name Address Michael Thomas 548 Apollo Drive, Lino Lakes Scott Schmitt 24 So. Olive Street, Waconia Kathleen Heller 4536 35'h Avenue, Minneapolis David & Jean Forbes 437 Shakopee Avenue E, Shakopee Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the City Council on July le and was tabled to give the staff some time to review specifically the drive thru. Just as a refresher there was four items for consideration. One was the PUD amendment and there's actually two underlying PUD's. One with the Vasserman Ridge and the other one Arboretum Village and the PUD amendment would accommodate the request from the applicant for a drive thin as well as criteria for the sign. The second action was for a conditional use permit which allow gas pumps with a convenience store. The third action would be a subdivision which would create three lots and then the final action being requested is a site plan approval. So with that, at your last meeting you directed the staff to develop some criteria for a drive thru and included in your packet was a review, a picture of a couple in Eden Prairie. The conclusion of the staff, we looked at that over the lunch hour. We did look at another drive thin coffee shop during the morning. Again you have to look at the scale of the center and kind of comparing apples to apples. If I can just put this over. This is two approximate locations where there's active. The third one we looked at wasn't open yet. A Caribou. This would be the Rainbow store in Eden Prairie, which on the end, behind Baker's Square is a drive thru, and it was observed that there was up to 7. It didn't seem to be a lot of stacking problems. There's a restaurant on either side. There wasn't similar conflicting possible traffic movements for the other ones. Maybe going into the restaurant might be a longer duration and kind of off -set peak hours. The other one that we looked at was in this location here. And at that drive thru there was a coffee shop that was opened in the morning, which has since closed, open til 10:00 and then after 10:00 you drive past that one and go to the Sub shop. And then there was also a car wash on the other side that you came through the other way so actually that one was probably a little bit more similar in the scale and the amount of trips generated. Again, going back to this site plan, the fuel station's kind of more the Kwik Trip, coming in and filling up and moving. Again the staffs concern is we did develop some criteria if the council chose to put the language in for the PUD amendment. Again in the past as I've indicated, some of these conditions of approval may be a little bit more difficult to try to manage or make sure they're in compliance. Specifically what they're selling, percentage of gross sales. Those sort of things. Again this is a BN district and staff had advised the applicant that we felt uncomfortable with that because there isn't any other BN neighborhood district that has a drive thru but there is the criteria in place should the council choose to do the drive thru. So with that, again there's 4 motions if you choose to put the drive thru, we did develop some criteria and reviewed that with the city attorney and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? On this issue. No? Okay, thank you. I see the applicant here, is there anything additional you'd like to add following last meeting? Okay, unless there are questions or follow-up questions for the applicant. Okay, thank you. With that we'll bring it to council for discussion on this matter. Councilman Peterson: Generally I think the development, I like it with the only exception of the drive thru. And I wasn't here at the last meeting but I diligently read the minutes and understand the different perspectives but my position over the years has been pretty clear. We've got an ordinance that says we don't allow drive thru's in these areas and whether it's a coffee shop or not, I don't feel comfortable saying what I'll allow as a drive thru and what I won't allow as a 0 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 drive thru. Staff has come back with some ideas about how we could, if we do allow it, how we could do it and administering what they're requesting is certainly onerous trying, going on a yearly basis and finding their gross revenue and policing what they can and can't sell out of that drive thm I think is something that we're asking a lot of staff to do, which I don't think is appropriate so. At the end of the day I'm not going to be able to support a coffee shop or anything with a drive thru in that area, that we clearly have said that we don't want a drive thru. So other than that I think it's ready for approval. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion. Councilman Ayotte: I'm less enamored with it this time around than I was last time around because of the setting, I don't know why Kate you were there so long at the Starbucks. I think you could have gotten the same information in a much shorter period of time but we won't go into that. I'm still more or less leaning on the side of saying yes to a drive thm but with the importance of things in life today, yes or no to something like that isn't as important but I kind of side with the folks that want to put it in because I don't think it's that big of a deal, and I don't want to downplay -your point Craig. I just don't think it is, I'm as fixed for not having it. I don't see a problem in having it so, but in terms of spending a lot of staff time monitoring something, that too is something I have a little bit of an issue with but I'd give in to a drive thin. Mayor Furlong: Maybe a follow-up question for staff. Are there other locations, commercial zoned or other zoning areas that this would be allowed without a variance or a conditional use within the city? I mean there are places within the city where you can have a drive thin obviously. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: We haves of those? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So it's just this particular area with this PUD where it was specifically stated that they didn't want drive thm. Kate Aanenson: Neighborhood Business which doesn't permit the drive thm and the underlying, under the PUD the underlying district is Neighborhood Business so that was the intent. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist any comments? Councilman Lundquist: I'm also a little less enamored with the idea from last time. I like the way that the developer put forth the effort into going the extra mile to get that in there. However, it seems like a lot of work and a lot of administration and a lot of things to do to put a drive thru in for this one thing, and then down the road who knows what could end up in there and what kind of problems that could create down the road so I liked the development and everything with the exception of the drive thm. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. My comments from last time, I won't repeat those but it's been expanded here from about two sentences of allowable conditions to 11 bullet points and I think either we should allow drive thru's in the area or we shouldn't. I guess I'm looking at more black and white rather than trying to pick which businesses we as a government body want to allow to have drive thru's and which ones we don't so from that standpoint again I can certainly City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 you know, appreciate that a business such as a coffee shop would want a drive thm. At the same time this is not the area within the city where we've designated to have that and I don't, I haven't seen the compelling reason to make that change. So on that issue I guess I would, my thoughts haven't changed significantly, in fact if anything have been reinforced by the additional information that we've had. Before we, unless there's any discussion on the drive thru, I will ask that the other item was the location of the crosswalk. I probably should have asked this at your staff report, I apologize. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I forgot to bring that up. There was a discussion on the sidewalk that was recommended. The Planning Commission recommended we carry it out through here. The direction from the public safety was that more than likely there's going to be crossing. They felt as long as there's going to be crossing we should try to do it safely. I'm not sure you're going to get concurrence between engineering and planning and public safety on this issue. We do believe some people are going to cross. Obviously the safest place is at the intersection. Really the only way to find out the true impacts of that is probably to use some sort of study, pedestrian movement study, so they felt like people are probably going to cross there and we should probably mark it as such and put the sidewalk in place. That was the direction of the public safety. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do we have something similar to that? Is this layout and traffic flow similar for the Kwik Trip site down at Galpin and West 78th? Teresa Burgess: If I could answer that, no. We do not have the mid -block crosswalk at that location, and in hind sight we probably would put it in if we had had foreseen that potential. By putting in the crosswalk we're encouraging people to walk an extra 30 feet and cross so that they are protected by the raised median at the middle. Otherwise it's our anticipation people would stop on the yellow line. That's a wide street and we would anticipate that people will not be able to make it all the way across in one crossing. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess I continue to have concerns there, given that there's an intersection about how far to the west of that proposed crosswalk. Basically at the end of the property. Kate Aanenson: Basically they discussed at the Planning Commission to put the additional sidewalk. Mayor Furlong: Really we're talking about the crossing over West 78'h there, correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct ... was to depress this, as Teresa had mentioned, to depress the median so you're in the median area, at least you've got the protection of looking both ways and striping it. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any discussion on that point or any other points from council? This is preliminary. We have four items. We need. to handle them separately, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and actually the motions start on, I forgot to mention that, page 19 would be the first motion. That would be for the PUD and then they follow the four. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion related to the PUD? City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Councilman Peterson: I make a motion the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment in the commercial portion of Arboretum Village clarifying parking setbacks and establish sign criteria for both Arboretum Village and Vasserman Ridge contingent upon approval of the final plat of Arboretum Shopping Center as follows amended in bold as supplied by staff, conditions through 9. Mayor Furlong: And are you including or excluding the drive thin? Condition. Councilman Peterson: I would not. Mayor Furlong: Excluding. Roger Knutson: And that motion I assume includes the findings of fact relative to the drive thin? Councilman Peterson: That's affirmative. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on this motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote without objection. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment in the commercial portion of Arboretum Village, clarifying parking setbacks and establish sign criteria for both Arboretum Village and Vasserman Ridge, contingent upon approval of the final plat of Arboretum Shopping Center as follows: ARBORETUM VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT WITHOUT DRIVE THRU: Arboretum Village (1992-2 PUD) PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurants (no drive thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 7 Variance granted by City Council Hard Surface Commercial 70% 68.3% Parking Setback if screening is provided 1 10 feet 10 feet e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10 foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall Mounted Signs 1. Building "A" shall be permitted signage along the south and west elevations only. 2. Building `B" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 3. The gas pump canopy shall not be permitted to have any signage. 4. The carwash shall be permitted to have one sign along the south or east elevation. 5. All signs require a separate permit. 6. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 9. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. Vasserman Ridge (2002-2 PUD): PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. 10 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 60 feet Hard Surface Commercial 70% Not available at this time Parking Setback if screening is provided 10 feet 10 feet e. Sign Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot 3 will have one monument sign facing Highway 5. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with a maximum area of 24 square feet. 2. The base of the sign shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and compliment their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall Mounted Signs 1. Building "C" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 2. All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 4. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height 5. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 6. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: The next item, where do we move to next? Kate Aanenson: 23. Mayor Furlong: 23? Conditional Use Permit? Is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: I'd move the City Council approves CUP #2003-2 to allow the construction of a convenience store with gas pumps on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center with conditions 1 through 9. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. 11 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2003-2 CUP to allow the construction of a convenience store with gas pumps on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, with the following conditions: 1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises. 2. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles. 3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel. 4. Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the city shall not intrude into any required setback area. 5. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles or all -terrain vehicles. 6. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided. 7. Gas pumps and/or storage tank vent pipes shall not be located within one hundred (100) feet of any parcel zoned or guided for residential use. 8. All light fixtures under the canopy shall be recessed into the canopy and screened. The canopy must be constructed of an opaque material to prevent light from shining through. 9. For Phase I, approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the following applications: a. PUD Amendment 1992-2 PUD. b. Site Plan Review 2003-6. C. Subdivision 2003-8. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion regarding the subdivision? Councilman Peterson: I'd move the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat Outlot D Arboretum Village and Lot 1, Block 4, Vasserman Ridge (4.79 acres), 2003-8 SUB into 3 lots as shown on the plans dated June 0 subject to conditions 1 through 4. Mayor Furlong: And is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat to replat Outlot D, Arboretum Village and Lot 1, Block 4, Vasserman Ridge (4.79 acres), 2003-8 SUB into three lots as shown on plans dated June 4, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 12 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 1. The developer shall provide a cross access and cross parking agreement for the three parcels. 2. The following park dedication charges will apply: Lot 1- $8,540; Lot 2- $11,620; and Lot 3 - $13,650 which shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 3. The total SWMP fees of $58,824.57 are due payable to the city at time of final plat recording. 4. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the city and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion regarding the site plan? Councilman Peterson: I'd move the City Council approve Site Plan Review #2003-6 SPR for the construction of three multi -tenant buildings, one of which contains a convenience store with gas pumps and coffee shop and a car wash as shown on plans prepared by Damberg, Scott, Gerzina, Wagner Architects dated and received May 16, 2003, subject to conditions 1 through 35. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan Review 2003-6 SPR for the construction of three multi -tenant buildings, one of which contains a convenience store with gas pumps and coffee shop, and a car wash as shown in plans prepared by Damberg, Scott, Gerzina, Wagner Architects dated Received May 16, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Correct the driveway dimensions on the site plan (Sheet AO) to read 26 feet in width. Also, dimension the tum lane widths and taper ratios. The taper ratio for the West 78'" Street tum lane shall be a minimum of 5:1. 2. On the grading plan: a. hrcrease the rock construction entrance to a minimum of 75 feet in length per City Detail No. 5301. b. Revise the existing 980 contour that crosses with another illegible contour on the existing topography. Likewise, correct the proposed 978 crossing contour lines. C. Provide erosion control blankets on the steep slopes along the west side of the entrance drive and along the east side of the Phase II building. 13 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 d. Revise the boulevard slope in the West 78t' Street right-of-way to a maximum grade of 2% within 15 feet of the curb line. e. Provide emergency overflows for catch basin nos. 3 and 4. The overflow elevation must be a minimum of one foot lower than the finished floor elevation of the adjacent building. f Show all existing and proposed easements. g. Show the existing pond to the east of the site and include the NWL and HWL. Also, show the existing storm sewer in the pond area. h. Show the proposed lot and block numbers. i. Limit the number of inlet aprons to the eastern pond of one inlet. j. Add a benchmark to the plan. 3. On the utility plan (Sheet C2): a. Show all proposed utility easements. b. Revise the watermain to loop through the site and connect with the existing main in West 78b Street. C. Show the existing watermain in West 78° Street and the storm sewer in the pond to the east. d. Move sanitary manhole no. 6 into the main drive aisle for access purposes. e. The minimum allowable storm sewer between catch basins is 12 inches in diameter. Revise where necessary. f. All of the public watermain will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary. g. Add street lights at the southeasterly comer of West 78'h Street and Century Boulevard and at the proposed driveway connection with West 78'h Street. 4. Add all applicable City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to Sheet C3. 5. The applicant will work with staff to determine the best possible location to provide a crosswalk across West 78th Street. The crosswalk will be from the south to the north side of West 78'h Street and connect with the existing bituminous trail and provide the additional sidewalk connection as shown in Attachment #1, as amended. 6. The applicant will work with staff to determine if a "No U Tum" sign will be required at the north end of the median on Century Boulevard and West 78'h Street. 7. The silt fence on the east side of the site must be Type III, heavy duty. 8. The property line dimensions for the Phase II parcel must match the final plat for Vasserman Ridge. 9. Private easements are required for the storm sewer lines that inn from one lot to another. 10. Show the pavement sections for the bituminous path and private street/drive aisle on the plans. 11. Provide an internal sign to direct cars out to West 78b Street for Highway 5 bound traffic. 12. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 14 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 13. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site, however additional information is required. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 14. Minimum 30 foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. 15. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 16. The existing contours for the Phase II portion of the site should reflect the Vasserman Ridge 2°d Addition grading. IT Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440 per unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876 per unit, and the SAC fee is $1,274 per unit. 18. The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street sine it serves multiple lots. As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a.9 ton design and enclosed within a 40 foot wide private easement. 19. Concrete driveway aprons, per City Detail Plate #5207 are required at the two proposed access points to the site. 20. For Phase I, approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the following applications: a. Subdivision 2003-8 SUB. b. PUD Amendment 1999-2 PUD. C. Conditional Use Permit 2003-2 CUP, 21. For Phase B, approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the following applications: a. Subdivision 2003-8 SUB. b. PUD Amendment 2002-2. 22. Landscaping Requirements: Phase I: a. The applicant shall increase plantings to meet minimum requirements for buffer yards, boulevard trees and parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval. b. The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berthing or increased landscaping. 15 City Council Meeting — July 28, 2003 Phase H: a. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for buffer yards, boulevard trees and parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval. b. The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 23. The applicant shall show the west and north elevations of the car wash. 24. All roof top equipment shall be screened. 25. The trash enclosure shall be built with the same type of materials used on the buildings. 26. The applicant shall introduce a pitched element to Building "B". '27. The parking lot islands shall be increased to 10 feet in width or aeration tubes will be required to be installed. 28. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. 29. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Please contact Chanhassen Fire marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted yellow. C. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Copy enclosed. d. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fre Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. e. A Post Indicator Valve will be required on the new building that have fire service water coming into the building. f Submit radius turns and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire marshal for review and approval. g. Phase H. The fire hydrant shown on Building "C will need to be relocated in front of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 30. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings are required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 16 City Council Meeting — Jury 28, 2003 C. Building A must have a minimum of 3 accessible parking spaces, one of which must have an 8 foot access aisle. Building C must have a minimum of 5 accessible parking spaces. d. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each piece of property. e. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. f. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 31. The applicant will need to apply for on -sale liquor licenses for the restaurants in Phase B. 32. Applicant will work with staff on the transparency or breaking up the east and west side of the carwash with the intent that it doesn't necessarily have to be windows. 33. If the drive thru is not carried on with the City Council, that the parking spaces be revisited with staff and the applicant. 34. The right-in/right-out access on Century Boulevard shall be permitted contingent upon MnDot approval. 35. The applicant shall work with staff to review the yellow color on the canopy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. THESHIP-ROSALES. Kate Aanenson: The subject site is located on Audubon Road. It's currently zoned A2. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to IOP. The applicant would like to rezone the easterly 120 feet of the property so they can keep their house and use the back half to operate a business. The site is located in the 2005 MUSA area. Sewer and water is currently not available to the property. The site is being used as a single family home with a separate storage garage building that's being used as a business. The comprehensive plan states that regardless of a property's land use designation, properties not served by urban services shall not be rezoned to a zoning designation for the land use designation until such time urban services are available. The current zoning of ,the parcel of less intense land use designation may remain. Intensification of land should only happen when there's provision of urban services, and this is an area the city is currently studying in how to provide those urban services. The IOP district does require a minimum lot area of 1 acre. The applicant does not meet that criteria and is under the requirement, again so not complying with district regulations. The site does have access via a gravel driveway and with the rezoning the use, one of the uses that would have to be brought up to code, the industrial building because it does not meet city standards also so for the following reasons the staff did recommend denial, as did the Planning Commission at their hearing on July I' when they reviewed the development. They recommended 7-0 to deny the request So with that, this is the subject site. The existing home and the use on the property. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Councilman Peterson: Kate, have we ever done anything like this before? I mean my past history I can't recall any. 17 Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:09 PM To: 'Jim Abrahamson' Subject: RE: Sign approval Attachments: mage001.jpg The item was approved at last night's Council meeting, however, there was not an applicant present to represent the item. In the future, someone should be available, just in case there are any questions from the council. I will be sending you a formal letter of approval shortly, with the conditions, etc. Please let me know if you have any questions in the mean time. Sincerely, Angie"_ - Angie Ausethr— Planner I SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:]imA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:59 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Sign approval Hi Angie, Do you have the final approval from the city council meeting last night? Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management �SIGNSOURCE 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 SCANNED Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 iustinas@sign-source.com Auseth, Angie From: Fauske, Alyson Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:48 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: FW: changeable message signs Attachments: 10-2008. pdf You probably already have this -----Original Message ----- From: Mike Spack[mailto:mspack@spackconsulting.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:35 PM To: Fauske, Alyson Cc: Oehme, Paul Subject: changeable message signs Alyson, I forwarded you a bunch of emails yesterday, but here is the most useful one. See below from Randy over at Eden Prairie. Attached is the ordinance they recently adopted on the issue. It is based on the research Minnetonka did. Here is Minnetonka's general page: htty://www.eminnetonka.com/communitv develooment/olannin¢/show oroject.cfm?l ink_id=Dynamic_Signs_Ordinance&cat_link_id=Planning Here is Minnetonka's staff report: http://www.eminnetonka.com/news events/projects/planning/dynamic signs/cc st aff_report_062507.pdf Mike Mike Spack, PE Spack Consulting The Traffic Study Company 3268 Xenwood Ave S St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952-378-5017 www.sDackconsulting.com Blog: www.MikeOnTraffic.com -----Original Message ----- From: Randy Newton[mailto:RNewton@edenprairie.org] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:13 PM To: Mike Spack Subject: RE: ITETRAFFIC Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-233) Mike - I saw your question about Changeable Message Signs on the ITE listserv. Our planning group just went through this process and got a lot of information from Minnetonka. I have included a link to the City of Minnetonka's project page for this item. If you click on their staff report PDF a pretty good report from SRF is included which discusses various studies and their results. http://www.eminnetonka.com/community development/planning/show project.c fm?link_id=Dynamic_ Signs_ Ordinance&cat_link _id=Planning This whole issue is an interesting debate and I'm sure there will be a lot of variation in the ordinances that get adopted. I've included our recently adopted ordinance as an FYI. Randy -----Original Message ----- From: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group[mailto:ITETRAFFIC@LIST.ITE.ORG] On Behalf Of ITETRAFFIC automatic digest system Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:36 PM To: ITETRAFFIC@LIST.ITE.ORG Subject: ITETRAFFIC Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-233) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:35:44 -0400 Reply -To: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group <ITETRAFFIC(&LIST.ITE.ORG> Sender: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group <ITETRAFFIC(&LIST.ITE.ORG> From: ITETRAFFIC automatic digest system <LISTSERV@LIST.ITE.ORG> Subject: ITETRAFFIC Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-233) To: ITETRAFFIC@LIST.ITE.ORG Message -ID: <ITETRAFFIC%200809050035447850.9C61@LIST.ITE.ORG> Precedence: list List -Help: <http://list.ite.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?LIST=ITETRAFFIC>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LIST.ITE.ORG?body=INFO%20ITETRAFFIC> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ITETRAFFIC-unsubscribe-request@LIST.ITE.ORG> List -Subscribe: <mailto:ITETRAFFIC - subscribe- request@LIST.ITE. ORG> List -Owner: <mailto:ITETRAFFIC-request@LIST.ITE.ORG> List -Archive: <http://Iist.ite.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?LIST=ITETRAFFIC> There are 16 messages totalling 5439 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Private Changeable Message Signs (for advertising) (9) 2. Activation of temporary traffic control devices 3. ped barrier (6) Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 300 West, Washington, DC 20005 USA For questions or problems contact the ITE Webmaster (mailto:website(@ite.org) F1 DYNAMIC DISPLAY CODE AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.70, BY DEFINING "DYNAMIC DISPLAYS," ADDING PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO DYNAMIC DISPLAYS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 2, Subsection 14, defining "Motion Signs," is repealed in its entirety. Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 2 is amended by adding the following definition which is to be inserted alphabetically and the subsequent clauses renumbered consecutively: "Dynamic Display" — A sign or characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. Section 3. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 3, Subsection C is amended in its entirety as follows: Dynamic Displays are prohibited in all districts, except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Section 11.70. Section 4. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 3, Subsection O, prohibiting Motion Signs, is repealed in its entirety. Section 5. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70 is amended by adding new Subdivision 7 to state as follows: Subd. 7. Dynamic Displays. A. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between Dynamic Displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by ]mowing that the sign has a changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character. The City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety. B. Permitted Sign Type and Locations. Dynamic Displays are permitted solely as Free-standing Signs and only in the Commercial Regional (C -Reg), Commercial Regional Service (C -Reg -Ser), Community Commercial (C -Com), Neighborhood Commercial (N - Com) Office (OFC), Town Center (TC -C), Public (Pu), and Industrial (I, 1-2,1-5 & I -Gen) zoning districts. C. Duration of Image. A Dynamic Display's image, or any portion thereof, may not change more often than once every 20 minutes, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour -and - minute, date, or temperature information. A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 20 minutes before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every three seconds. D. Transition. If a Dynamic Display's image or any portion thereof changes, the change sequence must instantaneous without any special effects. E. Prohibition on Video Display. No portion of a Dynamic Display may change any part of its sign face by a method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, or depict action or a special effect to imitate movement, or display pictorials or graphics in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion of any kind. F. Prohibition on Fluctuating or Flashing Illumination. No portion of a Dynamic Display image may fluctuate in light intensity or use intermittent, strobe or moving light, or light that changes in intensity in sudden transitory bursts, streams, zooms, twinkles, sparkles or in any other manner that creates the illusion of movement. G. Audio. Dynamic Displays shall not be equipped with audio speakers. H. Malfunctions. Dynamic Displays must be designed and equipped to freeze the sign face in one position if a malfunction occurs. Dynamic Displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately tum off the display when notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance. I. Brightness. All Dynamic Displays shall meet the following brightness standards: a. No Dynamic Display may exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. b. All Dynamic Displays having illumination by means other than natural light must be equipped with a dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness to comply with the requirements of this Section. c. No Dynamic Display may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. d. The owner or controller of the Dynamic Display must adjust the sign to meet these brightness standards in accordance with the City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the City. e. A written certification from the sign manufacturer that light intensity has been preset to conform to the brightness levels established by code and that the preset level is protected from end user manipulation by password protected software or other method. This would offer the advantage of ensuring that electronic signs at a minimum cannot exceed the standards. Dynamic displays are allowed only on free standing signs in the permitted districts. Dynamic displays may occupy no more than 35% percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 150day of April, 2008, and finally read and ado and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 15 day of April, 2008. A650�le � Ka een Porta, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ��%� y of 2008 DYNAMIC DISPLAY CODE AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 10-2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 BY AMENDING SECTION 11.70 RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 1199 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows amendments to city code chapter 11 relating to signs with dynamic display. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: V Kat een Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on o7 2008. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA - DYNAMIC DISPLAY CODE AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 302008 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 BY AMENDING SECTION 11.70 RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summ»Y: This ordinance allows amendments to city code chapter 11 relating to signs with dynamic display. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take affect upon publication. Phil Young, Mayor Attest Kathleen Porta, City Clerk (A hill copy of the text of this Ordinance is available trona City Clerk.) (Published in the Eden Prairie News on Thursday, April 24, 2008; No. 2f00) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota ) )SS. County of Hennepin ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspaper known as the Eden Prairie News and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) This newspaper has complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, w amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No., � was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice (said Notice is hereby incorporated as pan of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghilklmnopgrstuvwxyz '� By:?z�G�G� '��Y4UUL) 1 Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and swom before me on this Iday of, 2008 r ';w/. GLLtc'sy, Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... 540.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ S40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... 512.19 per column inch Auseth, Angie From: Jim Abrahamson [JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:45 AM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Adam Skare; Ron Clark; Bryan Monahan Subject: FW: scan Attachments: newsslogo.gif; image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.jpg; VT Safety Study.pdf; Arbitron Report.pdf Hi Angie, Let us know if this helps. I would also like to see if you know how many units you have in the city existing now? Adam it may help to have you on hand at the next planning meeting as it seems the staff could use some explanation on the operation of these units. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management S IGNSOURCE 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 iustinas@sign-source.com From: Adam Skare [mailto:ASkare@daktronics.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:30 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: RE: scan Jim, I've attached a few documents that they may find useful. Please let me know if you'd like me to attend any meetings, make any presentations or go over anything with you or the city. Adam Skare Commercial Sales' Resellar Development 9921 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 tel 952.942.5874 mobile 651.357.4135 fax 952.944 3520 email askare@daktronics.com website www.daktronics.com DAKTRONICS From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:55 AM To: Adam Skare Subject: FW: scan Hi Adam, Please let me know if Daktronics has any safety studies that have been done on the issue of your LED units. Please read the attached and let me know if you can help. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management /00SIGNsouRCE- 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sicln-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 iustinas@sign-source.com HI From: Justina Sleeper Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:47 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: scan Thanks - Have a Great Day! Justina Sleeper Customer Service S GNSOURCE 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph. 952.908.9125 E -Fax 952-908-9155 www.sign-source.com www.tech n iori nt. net Driving Performance and Digital Billboards FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education By: Suzanne E. Lee Melinda J. McElheny and Ronald Gibbons Virginia f ®1 Tech w TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE Center for Automotive Safety Research March 22, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF FIGURES................................................................................................................................................s TABLEOF TABLES..................................................................................................................................................5 ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................................6 EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................7 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................11 REVIEWOF PREVIOUS RESEARCH.................................................................................................................12 METHOD...................................................................................................................................................................19 SELECTIONOF CITY................................................................................................................................................. 19 DIGITALBILLBOARDS............................................................................................................................................. 19 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................... 19 IndependentVariables....................................................................................................................................10 DependentVariables..........................................................................................................................................23 SELECTION OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES BASED ON PREVIOUS DRrviNG STUDIES...................................................24 Measures of Visual Demand..............................................................................................................................14 Searchand Scan Patterns..................................................................................................................................14 MirrorGlance Duration....................................................................................................................................25 Velocity..........................................................................................................................................................25 LateralPosition..................................................................................................................................................25 PARTICIPANTS.........................................................................................................................................................26 ROUTEAND EQUIPMENT..........................................................................................................................................27 Route..................................................................................................................................................................27 Vehicle..........................................................................................................................................................31 DataCollection System......................................................................................................................................31 PROCEDURE.............................................................................................................................................................35 Participant Recruitment and Screening... .......................................................................................................... 35 ExperimentalProtocol.......................................................................................................................................35 DATAREDUCTION...................................................................................................................................................38 AnalystTraining.................................................................................................................................................3b Software..........................................................................................................................................................38 Procedure........................................................................................................................................................... 39 EventIdentification............................................................................................................................................39 EyeglanceAnalysis..................................................................................................................... ...................39 FinalReduced Data Set.....................................................................................................................................4G StatisticalAnalysis.............................................................................................................................................4G NIGHTTIMESTUDY..................................................................................................................................................41 RESUL POST -DRIVE QUESTIONNAIRE— DAYTIME RESULTS ............. Demographics Overview.. ............................................... Route Familiarity.. .......................................................... Overview of What Drivers Noticed ................................................. POST -DRIVE QUESTIONNAIRE — NIGHTTIME RESULTS .......................... Age.................................................................................................. RouteFamiliarity ............................................................................ AttentionGetters............................................................................. MostMemorable............................................................................. DRIVING PERFORMANCE RESULTS — DAYTIME ..................................... EventType............ .......................................................... ................. Otherfindings ................................................................................. DRIVING PERFORMANCE RESULTS — NIGHTTIME .................................. 44 ................................................................... 49 ................................................................... 50 ................................................................... 50 ................................................................... 51 ........................................................52 ................................................... 63 ...................................................64 EventType..........................................................................................................................................................64 NIGHTTIME LUMINANCE MEASURES....................................................................................................................... 68 COMPARISONS TO THE CHARLOTTE STUDY..............................................................................................71 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................._.....................................................................73 REFERENCES......................................................................................................._.................................................74 APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................................._...........77 APPENDIX A: INITIAL PARTICIPANT TELEPHONE SCREENING FORM........................................................................77 APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX C: HEALTH SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................. APPENDIX D: POST DRIVE-QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................... 2 .....87 TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANTS TO EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS................................................................20 FIGURE 2. MAP ILLUSTRATING DIGITAL BILLBOARDS (BLACK), CONVENTIONAL BILLBOARDS (RED), COMPARISON SITES (AQUA BLUE), AND BASELINE SITES (BLUE)..............................................................................................23 FIGURE 14. MAP ILLUSTRATING NIGHTTIME ROUTE WITH DIGITAL BILLBOARDS (BLACK), CONVENTIONAL FIGURE 3: NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT THAT APPEARED IN THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER...................................26 BILLBOARDS (RED), COMPARISON SITES (AQUA BLUE), AND BASELINE SITES (BLUE)........................................42 FIGURE 4. EXPERIMENTER SEATED IN EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE..................................................................................27 FIGURE 15. TOP DAYTIME ATTENTION GETTERS (TOP NINE OF EIGHTEEN POSSIBLE)..................................................47 FIGURE 5. MAP OF 50 -MILE DAYTIME LOOP ROUTE IN CLEVELAND, OHIO.................................................................28 FIGURE 16. TOP NIGHTTIME ATTENTION GETTERS (TOP NINE OF EIGHTEEN POSSIBLE)...............................................51 FIGURE 6. DIRECTIONS MOUNTED ON DASHBOARD OF VEHICLE (THIS PICTURE IS FROM A PREVIOUS EXPERIMENT FIGURE 17. PERCENT EYES -ON -ROAD TIME FOR THE FOUR EVENT TYPES. (COMPARISON EVENTS WERE WHICH USED THE SAME PROTOCOL AND VEHICLE TYPE).....................................................................................30 SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE OTHER THREE EVENT TYPES, WHICH DID NOT DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER)..53 FIGURE 7. EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE, 2002 CHEVROLET MALIBU.................................................................................31 FIGURE 18. MEAN NUMBER OF GLANCES TO ANY LOCATION DURING AN EVENT. (THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT FIGURE 8. FORWARD FACING CAMERAS MOUNTED BEHIND THE CENTER REAR VIEW MIRROR..................................32 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVENT TYPES.)..............................................................................................................54 FIGURE 9. DRIVER FACE CAMERA, MOUNTED NEAR THE LEFT A-PILLAR....................................................................32 FIGURE 19. MEAN NUMBER OF LEFT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (THERE FIGURE 10. DRIVER FACE CAMERA MOUNTED ABOVE REAR VIEW MIRROR...............................................................33 WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVENT TYPES.)...........................................................................55 33 FIGURE 20. MEAN NUMBER OF RIGHT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (NONE FIGURE 11. DIAGRAM OF SIMULTANEOUS PRESENTATION OF FOUR CAMERA VIEWS..................................................33 THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES WERE SIGNIFICANT.).............................................................................................56 FIGURE 12. DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM LOCATED IN TRUNK OF VEHICLE................................................................34 FIGURE 13. COMPONENTS OF THE DATA COLLECTIONSYSTEM...................................................................................34 FIGURE 14. MAP ILLUSTRATING NIGHTTIME ROUTE WITH DIGITAL BILLBOARDS (BLACK), CONVENTIONAL BILLBOARDS (RED), COMPARISON SITES (AQUA BLUE), AND BASELINE SITES (BLUE)........................................42 FIGURE 15. TOP DAYTIME ATTENTION GETTERS (TOP NINE OF EIGHTEEN POSSIBLE)..................................................47 FIGURE 16. TOP NIGHTTIME ATTENTION GETTERS (TOP NINE OF EIGHTEEN POSSIBLE)...............................................51 FIGURE 17. PERCENT EYES -ON -ROAD TIME FOR THE FOUR EVENT TYPES. (COMPARISON EVENTS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE OTHER THREE EVENT TYPES, WHICH DID NOT DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER)..53 FIGURE 18. MEAN NUMBER OF GLANCES TO ANY LOCATION DURING AN EVENT. (THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVENT TYPES.)..............................................................................................................54 FIGURE 19. MEAN NUMBER OF LEFT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVENT TYPES.)...........................................................................55 FIGURE 20. MEAN NUMBER OF RIGHT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (NONE OF THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES WERE SIGNIFICANT.).............................................................................................56 FIGURE 21. MEAN SINGLE GLANCE TIME FOR LEFT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.) ..............57 FIGURE 22. MEAN SINGLE GLANCE TIME FOR RIGHT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.)..............58 FIGURE 23. TAILS ANALYSIS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF GLANCE DURATION, (METHOD DESCRIBED M HORREY AND WICKENS, 2007).................................................................................................................................................59 FIGURE 24. MEAN SINGLE GLANCE TIME FOR GLANCES IN THE DIRECTION OF EVENTS. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.).............................................................60 FIGURE 25. STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED BY EVENT, IN MILES PER HOUR. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.).......................................................................................61 FIGURE 26. STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED BY EVENT FOR EVENTS OCCURRING ON INTERSTATES, IN MILES PER HOUR. (NONE OF THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES WAS SIGNIFICANT.)...................................................................62 FIGURE 27. STANDARD DEVIATION OF LANE POSITION BY EVENT, IN INCHES. (NONE OF THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES WASSIGNIFICANT.).............................................................................................................................................63 FIGURE 28. EYES -ON -ROAD PERCENT BY EVENT TYPE FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY .......................... 65 FIGURE 29. OVERALL GLANCE FREQUENCY BY EVENT TYPE FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY ................ 65 FIGURE 30. MEAN GLANCE TIME FOR GLANCES IN THE DIRECTION OF AN EVENT FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY................................................................................................................................................................6t FIGURE 31. MEAN NUMBER OF GLANCES IN THE DIRECTION OF AN EVENT FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY.......................... ..... .... .. ...................... ... ............... ............................................................................ FIGURE 32. SPEED MAINTENANCE AS MEASURED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED BY EVENT FOR THE NIGHTTIMEEXPLORATORY STUDY.....................................................................................................................67 FIGURE 33. LANE KEEPING AS MEASURED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF LANE POSITION BY EVENT FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY.....................................................................................................................68 FIGURE 34. BRACKET FOR RADIANT IMAGING CCD PHOTOMETER.............................................................................69 FIGURE 35. RADIANT IMAGING CCD PHOTOMETER M POSITION FOR MEASUREMENTS, WITH EXPERIMENTER MAKING FINALADIUSTMENTS..........................................................................................................................................69 FIGURE 36. AVERAGE LUMINANCE OF THE FOUR EVENT TYPES, IN CANDELAS PER METER SQUARED ....................... 70 TABLE OF TABLES TABLE1. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES...........................................................................................................................20 TABLE 2. EVENT TYPES INDICATING DESCRIPTION, SIDE OF THE ROAD, LATITUDE, LONGITUDE, AND SPECIFIC SITE LOCATIONINFORMATION....................................................................................................................................22 TABLE 11. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: TABLE 3. DIRECTIONS FOR 50 -MILE DAYTIME ROUTE IN CLEVELAND, OH...................................................................29 "DOES ANYTHING ABOUT OTHER DRIVERS BOTHER YOU? IF SO, PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE."...........................48 TABLE 4. DIRECTIONS FOR 1.5 -MILE PRACTICE ROUTE IN INDEPENDENCE, OHIO........................................................30 TABLE 12. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: TABLE 5. ORDER OF PARTICIPATION (SHOWN BY AGE AND GENDER)..........................................................................36 "WHAT OTHER ACTIVITIES DO YOU TYPICALLY ENGAGE IN WHILE DRIVING?"....................................................49 TABLE 6. NIGHTTIME DRIVING DIRECTIONS................................................................................................................41 TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS FOR ALL NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS............................................50 TABLE 7. NIGHTTIME ORDER OF PARTICIPATION.........................................................................................................42 TABLE 14. ROUTE SEGMENT FAMILIARITY FOR ALL NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS.........................................................50 TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS FOR ALL DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS.................................................45 TABLE 15. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: TABLE 9. ROUTE SEGMENT FAMILIARITY FOR ALL DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS..............................................................46 "WHAT WAS MOST MEMORABLE ABOUT THE DRIVE? FOR EXAMPLE, WERE THERE ANY OBJECTS THAT STOOD TABLE 10. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS FOR THE QUESTION: "WHAT WAS MOST MEMORABLE ABOUT THE DRIVE? FOR EXAMPLE, WERE THERE ANY OBJECTS THAT STOOD OUT? .............. 47 TABLE 11. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: "DOES ANYTHING ABOUT OTHER DRIVERS BOTHER YOU? IF SO, PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE."...........................48 TABLE 12. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: "WHAT OTHER ACTIVITIES DO YOU TYPICALLY ENGAGE IN WHILE DRIVING?"....................................................49 TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS FOR ALL NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS............................................50 TABLE 14. ROUTE SEGMENT FAMILIARITY FOR ALL NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS.........................................................50 TABLE 15. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: "WHAT WAS MOST MEMORABLE ABOUT THE DRIVE? FOR EXAMPLE, WERE THERE ANY OBJECTS THAT STOOD OUT?".................................................................................................................................................................52 ABSTRACT The results of a naturalistic study showed that several driving performance measures in the presence of digital billboards are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on -premises signs located at businesses. These performance measures included eyeglance performance, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. The current study was conducted in Cleveland, OH following the model of a previous study conducted in Charlotte, NC (which showed no measurable effects of conventional billboards on eyeglance patterns, speed maintenance, or lane keeping). Thirty-six drivers drove an instrumented vehicle on a 50 -mile loop route in the daytime along some of the interstates and surface streets in Cleveland. Participants were not informed about the true purpose of the experiment, and were told that the purpose was to help understand the way people drive in a natural environment. Along the route, participants encountered five digital billboards, 15 conventional billboards, 12 comparison sites (similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving), and 12 baseline sites (sites with no signs). Twelve participants returned for a nighttime session to explore the potential effects of the digital billboards at night. The eight seconds leading up to the events of interest were then analyzed in terms of eyeglance patterns, speed maintenance behavior, and lane keeping behavior. In a post -drive questionnaire, 42% of drivers mentioned billboards as one of the top five items that caught their attention (out of 18 choices). Eyeglance results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance patterns (percent eyes -on -road and overall number of glances) between event types. Drivers also did not glance more frequently in the direction of digital billboards than in the direction of other event types, but drivers did take longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and comparison sites than in the direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites. However, the mean glance length towards the digital billboards was less than one second. Various researchers have proposed that glance lengths of 1.6 seconds, 2.0 seconds, and longer may pose a safety hazard. An examination of longer individual glances showed no differences in distribution of longer glances between the four event types. There were only minor differences in speed maintenance or lane keeping performance for the four event types. The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites. Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on -premises signs located at businesses. 1-*.XSlljn WALYllW/:\ AWA The most notable findings from this study are as follows: • Eyeglance results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance patterns between digital billboards, conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline events during the daytime. • Drivers did not glance more frequently in the direction of digital billboards than in the direction of other event types during the daytime. • Drivers took longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and comparison sites than in the direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites during the daytime. • An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds indicated that these longer glances were distributed evenly across the digital billboards, conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline events during the daytime • The nighttime results indicate that digital billboards and comparison events may be associated with more active glance patterns, as well as with more frequent and longer glances towards the digital billboards and comparison events. • For the post -drive questionnaire, 42% of drivers mentioned billboards as one of the top five items that caught their attention; note that drivers did not know this was billboard study. • In an open-ended question, three drivers mentioned billboards as the single most memorable item on the trip, and two referred specifically to the digital billboards as being memorable. The motivation for the current study was to examine driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, as compared to other driving locations without them. There is a long history of studying billboards in the context of traffic safety but, although the research record covers many years (1951 until the present), it is lacking in volume and is primarily focused on conventional billboards. There were a few epidemiological studies performed in the early 1950's examining traffic accidents in the presence and absence of billboards; however, much of this early work was methodologically flawed. After a long gap in research, there were a few additional studies in the 1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards are unsafe. More recent studies conducted in Canada have shown that there may be changes in driver behavior associated with video billboards (those with full motion), but those studies do not address the digital billboards of interest in the current study (with a static message that changes instantaneously without special effects). Traffic accident analysis techniques have improved in recent years with the creation and maintenance of national crash databases. A careful examination of these databases shows that distraction caused by billboards fails to show up in any of the accident databases as an accident cause. Likewise, an examination of numerous driver distraction studies demonstrates that billboards fail to show up as a cause of driver distraction. The overall conclusion from all past research is that conventional billboards in general have not been shown to cause traffic accidents or change driver behavior. However, the question of whether digital billboards change driver behavior in some way cannot be answered by these previous studies; this is the motivation for the current study. The current study was conducted in Cleveland, OH to assess the effects, if any, of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance. The study was conducted following the model of a previous study conducted in Charlotte, NC that showed no measurable effects of conventional billboards on eyeglance patterns, speed maintenance, or lane keeping. Thirty-six drivers were recruited with males and females equally represented; they were also equally divided by age (older: 50-75, younger: 18-35). Participants drove an instrumented vehicle on their own (without an experimenter in the vehicle) on a 50 -mile loop route in the daytime along some of the interstates and surface streets in Cleveland. Participants were not informed about the true purpose of the experiment, and were told that the purpose was to help understand the way people drive in a natural environment. Along the route, participants encountered the following items: • 5 digital billboards (all that were available on the route). The digital billboards were the standard bulletin size (14 ft x 48 ft) and the copy changed instantaneously every eight seconds (there were no special effects during the transition). • 15 conventional billboards (similar to those studied in the Charlotte study). • 12 comparison sites (similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving; comparable to digital billboards in terms of visual activity/attractiveness, including on -premises signs [some with digital elements], logo placards, landmark buildings, and murals). • 12 baseline sites (sites with no signs). After the drive, participants completed a questionnaire regarding which types of items and activities they had noticed along the route. Participants were paid a nominal amount for their participation. Twelve participants returned for a nighttime session to explore the potential effects of the digital billboards at night. The eight seconds leading up to the events of interest were then analyzed in terms of eyeglance patterns, speed maintenance behavior, and lane keeping behavior. With 36 participants and 44 sites, there were 1,584 events available for analysis from approximately 63 hours of data collection. A small amount of data was lost due to cell phone use, sensor outages, sun angle, and vehicle stoppages, leaving 1,540 events for eyeglance analyses. Altogether, 124,740 video frames were analyzed and 10,073 individual glances were identified. The speed data were filtered to remove events as described above, and then further filtered to remove low speed events, leaving 1,494 events in this dataset, with 121,014 data points. The lane position dataset was further filtered to remove events indicating a possible lane change or lane position sensor failure (often due to poor lane markings). After filtering, there were 1,188 events remaining in the lane position dataset, with 96,228 data points. In terms of demographics, the average age was 28 years for younger drivers and 59 years for older drivers. Most had completed high school, but few had attended college. All participants lived in the Cleveland area, and were familiar with at least some parts of the route. For the post - drive questionnaire, 42% of drivers mentioned billboards as one of the top five items that caught their attention (out of 18 choices). In a later open-ended question, three drivers mentioned billboards as the single most memorable item on the trip, and two referred specifically to the digital billboards as being memorable. By way of contrast, only 25% of drivers in the Charlotte study checked off billboards in their top five list (of 18 choices), and none mentioned billboards as being the most memorable aspect of the trip. Recall that drivers did not know that the purpose of the study was to examine performance in the presence of billboards; in fact, they did not know that the study had anything to do with billboards. Eyeglance results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance patterns (percent eyes -on -road and overall number of glances) between event types (digital billboard, conventional billboard, comparison events, and baseline events). Drivers also did not glance more frequently in the direction of digital billboards than in the direction of other event types. However, drivers did take longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and comparison sites than in the direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites. Given that three of the comparison sites had digital components, the similar eyeglance findings for these two event types are not surprising. An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds showed no obvious differences in the distribution of these longer glances across event types. There were differences in speed maintenance, with conventional billboards showing greater variation in speed than digital billboards. However, this was thought to be the result of a road type interaction, given that all of the digital billboards were on interstates. When only interstate events were considered in the analysis, there were no significant differences in speed maintenance across event types. There was a trend towards poorer lane keeping performance for digital billboards and conventional billboards; however, this trend failed to reach significance. A smaller exploratory study was also conducted at nighttime using a slightly shortened route. Given that the digital signs being studied were intrinsically illuminated, this was felt to be an important first step in determining whether there are driver performance differences in the presence of these signs under different levels of ambient illumination. Twelve drivers were used, again divided equally by age and gender. All of the nighttime drivers had previously driven the route during the daytime and were thus somewhat familiar with the route (so were unlikely to get lost or go off route). The nighttime study was exploratory in nature with fewer data points, so these data were examined descriptively rather than analyzed statistically (due to lack of statistical power). Four eyeglance measures were examined for the nighttime data: eyes -on -road percent, overall glance frequency, mean glance duration in the direction of an event, and mean number of glances in the direction of an event. The eyes -on -road measure showed that digital billboards and comparison events tended to have less eyes -on -road time at nighttime than either baseline events or conventional billboards. The overall glance frequency was also higher in the presence of digital billboards and comparison events than in the presence of baseline events and conventional billboards. These two findings taken together show a more active glance pattern at nighttime in the presence of these two event types. The mean glance duration for glances in the direction of an event also showed higher values for digital billboards and comparison events. Finally, the mean number of glances in the direction of an event also showed digital billboards and comparison events as having higher values than either baseline events or conventional billboards. Taken together, these four findings indicate that digital billboards and comparison events may result in more active glance patterns overall, as well as more frequent and longer glances towards the digital billboards and comparison events at nighttime. Two driving performance measures were examined for the nighttime data: standard deviation of speed and standard deviation of lane position. The standard deviation of speed appeared to be higher in the presence of both conventional and digital billboards than for baseline and comparison events. Lane keeping also showed a trend towards greater lane deviations in the presence of both digital billboards and conventional billboards. The luminance values of many of the billboards, comparison events, and baseline events were also measured at nighttime. The digital billboards had noticeably higher luminance values than any of the other event types, even though their luminance was automatically reduced at night. This probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital billboards. The overall ranking of luminance by event (digital billboards were the highest, followed in order by comparison events, conventional billboards, and baseline events) closely mirrors the rankings of many of the performance measures for both daytime and nighttime, including eyeglance, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital billboards and by longer glances in the direction of the billboards). The comparison events, 25% of which included signs with digital components, showed very similar results to the digital billboards. Thus, there appears to be some aspect of the digital billboards and comparison events that holds the driver's attention, once the driver has glanced that way. This is most likely the result of the intrinsic lighting of these signs, which is noticeable even during the daytime. Drivers may also have maintained longer glances towards the digital billboards in the hopes of catching the next message (knowing that the message changes periodically). Although exploratory in nature, the nighttime results were very similar to the daytime results, with indications of degraded driving performance for digital billboards and comparison events. These particular LED billboards were considered safety -neutral in their design and operation from a human factors perspective: they changed only once every eight seconds, they changed instantaneously with no special effects or video, they looked very much like conventional billboards, and their luminance was attenuated at night. It is thus quite likely that digital signs with video, movement, higher luminance, shorter on -message duration, longer transition times, and special effects would also be related to differences in driver behavior and performance. Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on -premises signs located at businesses. Conventional billboards were shown both in the current study and in the Charlotte study to be very similar to baseline and comparison events in terms of driver behavior and performance; thus, the design of digital billboards should be kept as similar as possible to conventional billboards. 10 INTRODUCTION There is a long history of studying billboards in the context of traffic safety, but although the research record covers many years (1951 until the present), it is lacking in volume. There were a few epidemiological studies performed in the early 1950's examining traffic accidents in the presence and absence of billboards. As will be seen, much of this early work was methodologically flawed. After a long gap in research, there were a few additional studies in the 1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards are unsafe. Traffic accident analysis techniques have improved in recent years with the creation and maintenance of national crash databases. A careful examination of these databases shows that distraction caused by billboards fails to show up in any of the accident databases as an accident cause. Likewise, an examination of numerous driver distraction studies demonstrates that billboards fail to show up as a cause of driver distraction. The lead author of this report recently participated on an expert panel charged with providing recommendations for a minimal data set to be included on police accident reports; billboards were never raised as a possible distraction or as an item that should be included on these accident reports. As will be seen, there has been relatively little research on billboards and their effect on driver behavior, and little original research on digital billboards of the type discussed in this report. The current project was therefore undertaken to fill this research gap and to determine whether digital billboards do in fact cause a change in driver behavior as he/she passes a billboard location. Several measures of eyeglance location were used as primary measures of driver visual behavior. Additional measures of driver performance were included to provide further insight -- these included speed variation and lane deviation. Drivers in this study used an instrumented vehicle, drove the route alone, and were uninformed as to the purpose of the study. The report is organized as follows: a literature review, covering topics such as early accident analysis studies, sign conspicuity studies, and later safety and driver distraction studies; a methods section; a results section; conclusions; references; and supporting material contained in appendices. 11 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH Early studies from the 1950's attempted to correlate the occurrence and frequency of accidents with the location of billboards or other roadway or roadside features. For example, a series of studies by the Minnesota Highway Department (Rykken, 195 1) analyzed accident features in order to determine whether there was any direct relationship between accident frequency and type and several elements of roadway and roadside design, including advertising sign type and location. While a relationship between frequency of access points and accident occurrence was evident, no apparent relationship was found between accident occurrence and advertising sign type or location. Rykken (195 1) added that more accurate accident reports might reveal an unexpected relationship between signs and accidents: the absence of signs when no other roadside objects are present may increase the likelihood of accidents by decreasing the driver's sense of a need for caution. Immediately after 45 miles of highway with no billboards or advertising signs in viewable distance, a roadside interviewing station investigated driver response. Because drivers expressed a feeling of fatigue and unease after having driven the section, the author postulated that the combination of a small number of distracting features and the complete absence of billboards produced a feeling of security, which tends to result in higher average driving speed. Several severe accidents that occurred over that stretch were attributed to excessive speed. McMonagle, a researcher with the Michigan State Highway Department, analyzed 2,675 accidents on a 70 -mile strip of highway from 1947 to 1948 in order to measure the relationship between accidents and highway design and roadside features (McMonagle, 1951). The strip of road included a variety of roadside features and design characteristics, including the number of lanes and traffic volume. Findings showed that the highest incidence of crashes occurred near intersections, particularly when gas stations, restaurants and other establishments were clustered nearby. Only a slight association (correlation coefficient .11) existed between large advertising signs and accidents. While total advertising signs correlated with accident frequency to a greater degree (correlation coefficient .41), advertising signs still contributed less to accident frequency than did groupings of design features or roadside features such as gas stations. In an attempt to correlate accident frequency with density of advertising and roadside business, Rusch (195 1) analyzed crash reports originating in 1947 and 1948 that examined sections of highway distributed across Iowa. The accidents were assigned one of three causes: 1) roadside business, 2) inattention or misdirected attention, or 3) "other causes." Roadside business was listed as the cause of an accident only if the business was specifically named in the accident report, as in the case of a vehicle exiting a gas station and being struck by oncoming traffic. Results showed that twice as many collisions occurred on the portions of road in the high-density category than occurred on the other parts of the test stretches put together. More accidents were attributed to inattention than to any other cause in the high-density category. In the low-density category, more accidents were attributable to miscellaneous causes than to business and inattention combined. Sections of highway in the low-density category showed lower accident rates than those in the high-density category, even when traffic volume was held constant. In addition, accidents on low-density stretches occurred more sporadically with less of a tendency to recur in the same locations the following year. In reference to this study, Andreassen (1985) 12 later claimed that "the greatest number of inattention accidents occurred on the sections where business and advertising predominated as the roadside property usage, but this does not prove anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence." Overall, these early studies provided some initial insight into accident causation, but did not demonstrate that billboards or other advertising signs were a possible cause of accidents. Intersections and high-density roadways combined with inattention were most commonly associated with an increased number of accidents. Interestingly, later analysts using modern statistical techniques critiqued these early studies as being methodologically flawed (e.g., Wachtel and Netherton, 1980; Andreassen, 1985). A critical research review sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA; Wachtel and Netherton, 1980) summarized knowledge concerning commercial electronic variable - message signage (CEVMS) in an effort to recommend national standards for their regulation. Because there was little research available in the area of CEVMS, their literature review focused on standard (conventional) billboards. Wachtel and Netherton (1980) opined that roadside advertising research based on accident studies has had limited value owing to either insufficient information concerning location and traffic or problems with statistical analysis and sampling error. While some studies have found positive relationships between outdoor advertising and accident frequency, others have arrived at the opposite conclusion. According to Wachtel and Netherton (1980), human factors laboratory research techniques are capable of gathering much more precise, reliable, and valid data in the attempt to measure and explain the effect of outdoor advertising on driver behavior. Literature from several related fields indicated that outdoor advertising probably does not hurt driving performance noticeably when driving conditions are favorable (in terms of weather, traffic, road, vehicle, etc.). This is because the driver has sufficient spare processing capacity to pay attention to the signs without compromising the primary task. When stimulation is extremely low, as when there is very little traffic and very little to look at or to decide, unusual environmental features such as road signs may increase the driver's arousal and improve driving performance. When the driving task becomes highly demanding, the outdoor advertising must compete with more vital information sources such as traffic, weather, and official signage. In a review of published literature relating accidents to advertising signs, Andreassen (1985) brought attention to weaknesses in the small amount of research that has been conducted in this area. Almost all studies have relied on correlations and/or subjectively assigned "inattention" factors, which can only produce very tenuous evidence for a causal link between advertising and accident frequency. Garvey, Thompson -Kuhn, and Pietrucha (1995) reviewed the studies that attempted to evaluate directly the relationship between traffic accidents and advertising signs. The common problem with these studies is attributing accident causation; high -advertising and low -advertising sites may have different accident frequencies because of differing traffic densities, pedestrian activity, and roadway geometry. Although most evidence argues against a strong causative link, it is still not possible to ascertain the existence or nature of the relationship between advertising and accidents. 13 Recently, much attention has been focused on the causes and effects of distraction on driving, especially in the area of cellular phones and other in -vehicle technology. A review of the recent driver distraction literature failed to reveal any studies in which outdoor advertising was mentioned as a cause for driver distraction. As a matter of fact, this report's lead author recently served on the advisory panel for the revised Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria in which transportation safety experts recommended revisions to the minimum set of data to be collected as part of every crash report. There were lengthy discussions over which distraction variables should be recommended, and the words "billboard" or "advertising" were never mentioned. The national crash databases do not mention billboards in their list of driver distractions. The two most prominent databases are the General Estimates System (GES), which estimates the number of all crashes based on a representative sample, and the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), which is a true census of every fatal crash. The only mention of billboards in the 216 page user's manual for the GES database is in the Driver's Vision Obscured By variable, which has a category of Building, Billboard, or Other Design Features (GES, 2002). In other words, if an accident was caused by a driver's vision being obscured, billboards would be lumped together with buildings and other design features, both of which are much more common than billboards. The same holds true for the FARS user's manual of 458 pages — billboards are only mentioned in the Driver's Vision Obscured By variable, and are lumped together with buildings (Tessmer, 2002). One recent study of driver distraction (Glaze and Ellis, 2003) reported one mention of the word "billboard" in the context of an accident caused by driver distraction. Glaze and Ellis performed a study to determine the nature of distraction/inattention crashes in the state of Virginia. A complex system of accident report sampling was administered via surveys sent to all seven Virginia state police divisions, four selected counties, and 14 independent cities. Roughly 2,800 crash scenes were reported, involving a total of almost 4,500 drivers. At least one distracted driver was involved in 98% of those crashes. Every accident report had a space to write an open- ended description of the main distracting factor in the accident, and over 1,400 responses were recorded. One response (out of 2,800 crashes) included a billboard being repaired as a causal factor for driver distraction leading to a crash. No mention of outdoor advertising was made in any other place in the study, despite the fact that 35% of distracters were outside of the vehicle in question (62% were in -vehicle and 3% were unknown). Typical in -vehicle distracters included passenger/children distraction (8.7%), adjusting radio/changing CD or tape (6.5%), eating or drinking (4.2%), and cell phone (3.9%). Typical out of vehicle distracters included looking at crash, other roadside incident, or traffic (13.1 %), looking at scenery or landmarks (9.8%), and weather conditions (1.9%). There were also 25 cases of drivers being distracted by traffic signs or signals (<1%). Tantala and Tantala (2005) have been the most recent researchers to attempt a rigorous examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic accidents. They used methods intended to control for the analytical issues noted with early studies of this type. They conducted two analyses for this research. In the first situation, a highway (New Jersey Turnpike) with advertising signs was selected and studied, including analysis of sign location, road conditions, and traffic -accident locations, to determine whether traffic accidents were more 14 prevalent at or near existing signs. More than four years of data and 23,000 accidents were used in this analysis. Statistical correlation coefficients showed that the correlation was statistically low for all analyses conducted, including accident density and sign density (with and without interchanges included), accident distance and viewer reaction distance (again with and without interchanges included), and accident density and proximity to the sign. They also found that these correlation values were consistent from year to year. This section of the analysis led them to conclude that there are no statistical or causal relationships between advertising signs and accidents. In the second analysis by Tantala and Tantala (2005), the location of a recently installed sign was identified, and the incidence of traffic accidents near the sign was examined. Accidents before and after sign installation were examined to determine whether traffic accidents occurred more frequently in the presence of the sign. The sign was installed at a busy intersection near a mall in Pennsylvania. The intersection was controlled by a traffic signal. One year of pre -installation and one year of post -installation data were compared. There were no other changes to the intersection during the two year study period. After installation of the sign, the traffic volume increased, the accident rate decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased, and the number of days without accidents increased. There were no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the installation of the advertising sign. Researchers are beginning to conduct more studies of driver performance in the presence of various types of advertising signs. For example, Beijer, Smiley, and Eizenman (2004) studied video advertising signs (those with full motion displays) in Toronto using eyeglance analysis similar to that used in the Charlotte study. They compared the video signs to two other types of active signs (scrolling text and roller bar) and to conventional billboards. Significantly more glances, and even more importantly, significantly more glances that lasted > 0.75 s were made to video signs than to scrolling text, roller bar, or conventional billboard signs. Taking all active signs together, these received significantly more glances and significantly more long glances per sign than the conventional billboards. However, there were no digital billboards of the type studied in the current research effort. The most recent research paper in this area was conducted by Cnmdall, Van Loon, and Underwood (2006). They conducted a laboratory study to examine the differences between street level advertising (such as advertising on bus shelters) and raised level advertising (the same sorts of signs, but raised 10 ft above the ground). They concluded that street level advertisements attract and hold attention at inappropriate times as compared to raised level advertising. Since the billboards studied in the current report were never at ground level, this paper provided no new useful information. It should be noted that the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) undertook another project for the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE) (Lee, Olsen, and DeHart, 2004). This project was undertaken in Charlotte, NC using methods similar to those used in the current study to determine whether there is any change in driving behavior in the presence or absence of conventional billboards. Several measures of eyeglance location were used as primary measures of driver visual performance. Additional measures were included to provide further insight into driving performance; these included speed variation and lane 15 deviation. The overall conclusion from this study was that there is no measurable evidence that billboards cause changes in driver behavior in terms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. A rigorous examination of individual billboards that could be considered to be the most visually attention -getting demonstrated no measurable relationship between glance location and billboard location. Driving performance measures in the presence of these specific billboards generally showed less speed variation and lane deviation. Participants in this study drove a vehicle equipped with cameras in order to capture the forward view and two views of the driver's face and eyes. The vehicle was also equipped with a data collection system that would capture vehicle information such as speed, lane deviation, Global Positioning System (GPS) location, and other measures of driving performance. Thirty-six drivers participated in the study, driving a 35 -mile loop route in Charlotte, NC. A total of 30 billboard sites along the route were selected, along with six comparison sites and six baseline sites. Several measures were used to examine driving performance during the seven seconds preceding the billboard or other type of site. These included measures of driver visual performance (forward, left, and right glances) and measures of driving performance (lane deviation and speed variation). With 36 participants and 42 sites, there were 1,512 events available for analysis. A small amount of data was lost due to sensor outages, sun angle, and lane changes, leaving 1,481 events for eyeglance analysis and 1,394 events for speed and lane position analysis. Altogether, 103,670 video frames were analyzed and 10,895 glances were identified. There were 97,580 data points in the speed and lane position data set. The visual performance results indicate that billboards do not differ measurably from comparison sites such as logo boards, on -premises advertisements, and other roadside items. No measurable differences were found for visual behavior in terms of side of road, age, or familiarity, while there was one difference for gender. Not surprisingly, there were significant differences for road type, with surface streets showing a more active glance pattern than interstates. There were also no measurable differences in speed variability or lane deviation in the presence of billboards as compared to baseline or comparison sites. An analysis of specific, high attention -getting billboards showed that some sites show a more active glance pattern than other sites, but the glance locations did not necessarily correspond to the side of the road where the billboards were situated. Taken as a whole, the results of the previous research conducted for FOARE support the overall conclusion that driving performance does not change measurably in the presence or absence of billboards. The only currently available research report related to electronic billboards is a literature review sponsored by the FHWA (Farbry, Wochinger, Shafer, Owens, and Nedzesky, 2001). The motivation for this report was to fill the knowledge gap in this area since the last attempt by Wachtel and Netherton in 1980. However, the material does not appear to address the instantaneously changing digital billboards of the type discussed in the current report. Examples shown pictorially in Farbry et al. (2001) are signs with changeable elements (such as time and temperature signs), tri -vision signs, and video digital billboards of the type studied by Beijer et al. (2004). Farbry et al. (2001) raised questions about safety implications with regard to driver distraction, summarized current knowledge in this research field, assessed areas needing 16 exploration, and developed a research plan to address them. While some electronic billboards (EBBs) display motion and color with fine detail, others just show a short sequence of words in which each letter is composed of a matrix of LEDs (Farbry et al., 2001). This type of display is also used by governmental agencies to present information to drivers and is known by several different acronyms: variable message sign (VMS); dynamic message sign (DMS); and changeable message sign (CMS). A tri -panel sign, also known as a tri -vision sign, is composed of triangular cylinders that rotate periodically, showing a different composite image in between each rotation. The only movement is that of the images in transition. Studies attempting to draw causality from correlation between dynamic billboards and accident frequency run into the same difficulties found by studies investigating conventional billboards and accidents (Farbry et al., 2001). Common obstacles include consistently confounding traffic conditions in areas with heavy advertising, incomplete or inaccurate accident reports, and driver motivation to omit distraction when reporting crash causality. Even given these stumbling blocks, the correlation is still statistically clear: after a dynamic, illuminated billboard is installed, crash rates go up. A common trend was exemplified when a 35% increase in sideswipe and year- end accidents on an interstate occurred after a variable message advertising sign was put up on the side of a sports stadium. The correlation, while rarely this dramatic, is a consistent one. However, even a correlation this strong is not sufficient evidence to assume causality. Enough other variables were held to be confounding the situation that the sports stadium sign was not deemed a traffic hazard in and of itself, and it remained in place for 16 years. Farbry et al. (2001) caution that correlations alone provide little fodder for the development of countermeasures. Researchers hypothesize that a safety hazard is posed by dynamic advertising because it may cause greater distraction, which can be measured in several formal ways. One common method is to ask the driver to perform another task while driving, then to measure the degree to which the safe operation or control of the vehicle is affected. Lack of control is typically quantified by one of three measures: lateral deviation, maintenance of appropriate speed, and/or braking for emergencies. Lateral deviation is defined as either the degree to which the vehicle swerves away from the center of the appropriate lane or a measure of the variability in steering wheel position. Maintenance of appropriate speed refers to the headway between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead; if the lead vehicle slows down, the participant vehicle should also slow down and maintain an appropriate speed to keep the headway constant. Some experiments present an emergency and measure distraction by the amount of time it takes the participant to respond appropriately. The literature review by Farbry et al. (200 1) also revealed that the two demographic groups most susceptible to the dangers of distraction while driving are drivers over the age of 65 or under the age of 24. Older drivers' visual processing speed and attention degrade with age, resulting in little to no spare resources with which to encode and process anything but the most important information in the driving environment. Younger drivers usually have faster processing speeds, but they are less experienced and less efficient at resource allocation. Among other weaknesses, younger drivers take more risks, may not recognize hazards, and have poor focus on the driving task itself. Because of this, they may be more vulnerable to having their attention drawn by irrelevant but attention -getting stimuli. 17 Other than age, a variable that may influence the degree to which a sign distracts a driver is route familiarity (Farbry et al., 2001). A driver who is new to a road may be looking for navigational or service cues, and this task may be take longer in a more complex visual environment containing numerous advertising signs. On the same road, a familiar driver may not look around much since he already has all of the information that he needs. Familiar signs may be less likely to attract the attention of a driver who knows the roadway well and whose primary navigational interests may be traffic conditions and incidents. According to this theory, a visitor would be more likely to be distracted by an advertising sign than would a commuter. Research regarding distraction, conspicuity, and legibility revealed that an increase in distraction, a decrease in conspicuity, or a decrease in the legibility of a sign may cause an increase in the crash rate (Farbry et al., 2001). The review shows that, at this point, there is no effective technique for evaluating safety effects of EBBs on driver attention or distraction. Crash studies may show a positive correlation between dynamic signs and crash rates, but driver age and route familiarity are examples of confounding variables whose interference may hide the fact that very little causality can be proven. The final recommendation of the Farbry et al. (2001) report is for further research in this area. They recommend research using several methods, including crash analysis of the sort conducted by Tantala and Tantala (2005), simulator research, test track research, and field studies. Simulator and test track research both have limitations with regard to sign research, especially in regard to digital billboards. For example, it can be difficult to achieve the visual effect of an internally illuminated sign in a simulator. For test tracks, only a limited amount of driving performance data could be obtained, which would likely not be worth the expense of installing a digital billboard on the test track. However, both test track and simulator research are more appropriate for highly controlled experiments in which the goal is to obtain information about the design and content of the billboard copy, the timing of the change, and other design elements. If the goal is to evaluate driver performance and behavior in the presence of digital billboards that occur in the natural course of driving, then a field study is the appropriate technique, and this was the technique selected for the current study. The overall conclusion from all past research is that conventional billboards in general have not been shown to cause traffic accidents or change driver behavior. However, the question of whether digital billboards change driver behavior in some way cannot be answered by these previous studies; this is the motivation for the current study. 18 METHOD Selection of City Both Pittsburgh, PA and Cleveland, OH were scouted as possible locations for conducting this study. The Pittsburgh streets where the digital billboards were located were generally very curry and hilly, often with nearby intersections. The digital billboards were often situated at the bottom of a hill, at a curve, or just beyond an intersection. It would have thus been difficult to conduct meaningful eyeglance and speed analyses under these conditions (i.e., the signs were situated in most cases such that the driver had to look straight forward to see the signs). The Cleveland digital billboards, on the other hand, were located off to the side of the roadway in straight-away sections of interstate with no interference from hills, curves, or intersections. It was thus apparent that choice of Cleveland would allow for a more robust analysis with fewer dropped data points. Digital Billboards The item of interest in this study was digital Billboards. These billboards are illuminated from within via a matrix of LEDs. These devices are capable of displaying several messages in a rotation. The digital billboards are also capable of video and special transition effects (such as fades or wipes from one message to the next). However, the digital billboards used in this study simply transitioned from one message to the next in less than one second, using no transition special effects or video; in other words, there was no motion or apparent motion used in displaying the messages or transitioning between them. Messages changed once every eight seconds. The billboards appeared very similar to conventional billboards, except that the copy was crisper and easier to read from a distance even during the daytime, likely due to the intrinsic lighting. The lighting level was automatically dimmed at night to adjust to the ambient lighting level. Light measurements taken at night are presented in a different section of the report. Experimental Design This study was conducted as a mixed -factors research design (a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 design, with four between -subjects cells). There were five independent variables: gender, age, route familiarity (determined post -hoc, so not balanced across subjects), event type, and road type. The between -subjects independent variables were gender (male or female) and age (younger or older). For the within -subjects variables, the levels were as follows: route familiarity (familiar or unfamiliar, defined later), event type (digital billboard, conventional billboard, baseline, and comparison, also defined later), and road type (interstate or surface roads). All of the participants drove each of the segments and were exposed to all of the billboards and comparison sites. A representation of the experimental design is included in Figure 1. 19 Route Familiarity Age Unfamilia Younger Older Gender Male Female Figure 1. Assignment of Participants to Experimental Conditions. Independent Variables The five independent variables are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Independent Variables. Variable Levels -Independent A e Younger 18-35 or Older 50-75 Gender Male or Female Route Familiarity Unfamiliar or Familiar (familiarity with at least 4 segments determined for each subject Event Type Digital Billboard, Conventional Billboard, Baseline (no billboards or other large signs) or Comparison (other signs or landmarks Road Type Interstate or Surface Street Age and Gender. Of the 36 participants, eighteen were younger drivers (18 to 35 years old) and eighteen were older drivers (50 to 75 years old). Eighteen of the participants were male and eighteen were female. Age was equally balanced across gender, as is illustrated by Figure 1 (e.g., of the 18 younger participants, 9 were male and 9 were female). Route Familiarity. Route familiarity referred to how often a section was normally driven by the participant per week (unfamiliar = drove section less than once per week; familiar = drove 20 section at least once per week). Route familiarity was ascertained after the drive by asking participants how familiar they were with the various segments they had just driven. Thus, this variable was not balanced across the participant population. Road Type. The two road types were interstates and surface roads. All of the participants were exposed to both road types. Approximately 85% of the route consisted of interstate segments, with the remainder being classified as surface streets. Event Type. The four event types included digital Billboard, Conventional Billboard, Comparison, and Baseline. All of the participants were exposed to all four event types. Events were 8 seconds long (chosen because the digital billboards were programmed to change messages instantaneously once every 8 seconds; an event length of 8 seconds thus made it highly likely that a message change would be captured during the event). The end of an event was the point at which the experimental vehicle passed the object, and the start of the event was then defined as 8 seconds before the end point. All events on the route are listed and described in Table 2. Digital Billboards. Five digital billboards were included along the driving route. Displays on the billboards changed instantaneously (i.e., no special effects such as fades, wipes, or shuttering occurred when the message changed) every 8 seconds; the signs followed standards for color, brightness, and placement. These five locations are shown in Figure 2 with the black dots (�). Conventional Billboards. Conventional billboard events were defined as areas in which designated billboards were visible. These were identified by GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude) associated with their exact location near the roadway. Most of the billboards were the bulletin size, 14 ft (h) by 48 ft (w). Of the total set of billboards available on the route, a sample of 15 billboards was selected for efficiency of data reduction and to ensure a balanced sample. The sample was selected so that it was balanced in terms of side of the road, media type, road type, and (where possible) varying degrees of "visual clutter." None of the selected boards were located directly prior to or after a road exit or entry (preliminary review of the video indicated that drivers were likely to be changing lanes or monitoring items such as road signs during these times, which could confound the results of the analysis). Each side of the road was equally represented to the degree possible, and most of the digital and conventional billboards were 14 ft x 48 ft bulletins. The remaining few were smaller boards, including standard poster, junior paint, and 10'6" x 36' bulletins. Table 3 lists the selected billboards, while the locations of the selected billboards are indicated by red dots (0) in Figure 2. Comparison Sites. Comparison events were areas with visual elements other than billboards. Examples include on -premise signs, logo placards, interesting landmark buildings, large wall murals, and variable message signs. Several events had digital components. The events were chosen before data collection began and were selected based on the experimenters' perception that these vents were comparable to the digital billboards in the visual attractiveness. These 12 sites are shown as aqua blue dots (3) in Figure 2. Baseline events. The baseline event type referred to areas with no billboards or other large signs visible (except for perhaps speed limit and other small traffic control signs). These 12 areas 21 served as locations with which to compare velocity, lane position, and glance patterns and are indicated by blue dots (0) in Figure 2. Event Types Indicating Description, Side of the Road, Latitude, Longitude, and Specific Site Location Information. Event Type: I=LED Billboard, 2=Static Billboard, 3=Comparison, 4 --Baseline Road Type: 1=lnterstate, S=Surface Street 22 Event Type Description Side Latitude Longitude Site Road Type 1 4 Baseline Both 41.41208267 -81.6701355 480 W, W/O Lancaster Dr. I 2 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42123795 -81.69820404 480 W, W/O Broadview Rd. 1 3 3 On Prem/Logo Right 41.42151642 -81.70906067 480 W, E/O State Rd. I 4 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42173767 -81.71897125 480 W, E/O Pearl Rd. 1 5 4 Baseline Both 41.42321014 -81.74341583 480 W, W/O Ride Rd. I 6 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42559433 -81.76654053 480 W, W/O Tiedeman Rd. 1 7 2 Static Billboard Right 41.42352295 -81.77274323 480 W, E/O W. 130th St. I 8 1 LED Billboard Left 41.42056274 -81.78245544 480 W, W/O W. 130th St. I 9 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.42053986 -81.7904892 480 W, @ W. 139th St. I 10 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42324829 -81.80148315 4866 West 150th S 11 4 Baseline Both 41.4307785 -81.80125427 4545 West 150th S 12 2 Static Billboard Left 41.43348694 -81.79000854 13986 Puritas Ave S 13 4 Baseline Both 41.43657303 -81.78400421 13456 Bellaire Rd S 14 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.43969727 -81.77674103 12686 Bellaire Rd S 15 3 Tri -Vision Billboard Right 41.44282913 -81.77227783 1207 1 Bellaire Rd S 16 4 Baseline Both 41.45092773 -81.76893616 3757 West 117th S 17 2 Static Billboard Left 41.46089554 -81.76893616 3370 West 117th S 18 4 Baseline Both 41.46966553 -81.75019836 90 E, @ W. 97th St. 1 19 1 LED Billboard Right 41.47394943 -81.72478485 90 E, @ W. 55th St. I 20 2 Static Billboard Left 41.47385406 -81.70856476 90 E, W/O Fulton Rd. I 21 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.48424911 -81.69098663 90 E,S/O Abbey Ave. I 22 I LED Billboard Eight 41.4903717 -81.68776703 90 E, @ W. 3rd St. I 23 3 On Prem LED Billboard Left 41.49866867 -81.67558289 2071 Carnegie Ave. S 24 3 On Prem Loo Left 41.49928284 -81.67251587 2351 Carnegie Ave. S 25 3 10n Prem LED Billboard Left 41.52510452 -81.66101074 90 E, ESO E. 49th St. I 26 3 IBuilding Right 41.53549194 -81.64455414 90 E, W/O E. 72nd St. 1 27 2 IStatic Billboard Right 41.54089737 -81.62488556 90 E, W/O E. 99th St. 1 28 2 IStatic Billboard Right 41.54464722 -81.61724854 90 E, W/O E. 105th St. I 29 4 Baseline Both 41.5479126 -81.60997009 90 E, @ E. 109th St. I 30 3 On Prem/Logo Right 41.55478668 -81.59642029 90 E, @ Coit Rd. 1 31 4 Baseline Both 41.56173325 -81.59170532 90 E, W/O E. 140th St. I 32 4 Baseline Both 41.56638718 -81.57984161 90 E, W/O E. 152nd St. I 33 2 Static Billboard Right 41.57143021 -81.56455994 90 E, @ E. 167th St. I 34 3 On Prem/Logo Right 41.57068634 -81.56790924 90 W, @ E. 161 st St. I 35 4 Baseline Both 41.56744385 -81.57712555 90 W, W/O E. 152nd St. I 36 4 Baseline Both 41.55927277 -81.59375763 90 W, W/O E. 140th St. I 37 I ILED Billboard Left 41.54701233 -81.61243439 90 W, W/O E. 105th St. 1 38 2 IStatic Billboard Left 41.54128647 -81.62450409 90 W, W/O E. 99th St. I 39 3 10n Prem LED Billboard Right 41.52567673 -81.66069031 90 W, W/O E. 55th St. I 40 2 Static Billboard Left 41.49006653 -81.66697693 77S, SIO Woodland Ave. I 41 2 Static Billboard Right 41.48295593 -81.66287231 77 S, @ 1490 Exit I 42 --1--FLED Billboard Right 41.46414566 -81.65770721 77 S, S/O Pershing Ave. I 43 4 Baseline Both 41.45179367 -81.65712738 77 S, N/O Harvard Ave. Exit 1 44 2 1 Static Billboard Left 41.4439621 -81.65229797 77 S, N/O Grant Ave. Exit Event Type: I=LED Billboard, 2=Static Billboard, 3=Comparison, 4 --Baseline Road Type: 1=lnterstate, S=Surface Street 22 x e E e rid BratenaN s eland '( H 0 12 y �'� south La P ti Cetl r Rd H fights iron each YP ^ � - 1 is — -..._ fights N s -., wrensuffle 71 HeW* rn tie's AveHei r $ ' _ I4d 1, L LED Bilibnaid �. 2: Static Billboard as s' Rd p Ina en4 3: Comparison 0 PXk _ Pam �I q<.-.r., valley view S a 4: Baseline Figure 2. Map Illustrating Digital Billboards (black), Conventional Billboards (red), Comparison Sites (aqua blue), and Baseline Sites (blue). Dependent Variables The dependent variables are discussed in more detail in the results section, but they are reviewed briefly here. The purpose of the study was to determine if there are changes in driver behavior in the presence of billboards. Eleven dependent measures were used as indicators of driver behavior: nine eyeglance measures and two driving performance measures. The nine eyeglance measures included: total number of glances for center forward, left forward, and right forward; total glance duration for center forward, left forward, and right forward; and average glance duration for center forward, left forward, and right forward. Keep in mind that all glance locations reported here were out of the front windshield, but varied in location within the forward view. The two driving performance measures were speed deviation (standard deviation of speed over the 8 seconds of the event) and lane deviation (standard deviation of lane position over the 8 seconds of the event). Additional analyses examined driver glance behavior to certain other locations, including interior locations and exterior locations other than forward. The next section is a supplement to the literature review presented earlier, and lays the groundwork for the selection of these dependent variables, which are similar to those typically used in transportation safety research. 23 Selection of Dependent Variables Based on Previous Driving Studies Measures of Visual Demand According to Farber, Blanco, Foley, Curry, Greenburg, and Serafm (2000), typical measures of visual demand include: 1) glance frequency, 2) glance duration, 3) average duration per glance, and 4) total eyes -off-road time. Such measures are time-consuming to record and analyze but are typically used to measure visual attention. For example, previous research has reported on driver performance of in -car tasks such as adjusting the radio, viewing in -car displays (e.g., speedometer) or interacting with a navigation system (Wierwille, Antin, Dingus, & Hulse, 1988; Gellatly & Kleiss, 2000; Kurokawa & Wierwille, 1990; Tijerina, Palmer, & Goodman, 1999). Visual glance duration and the number of glances per task were investigated while performing conventional in -vehicle tasks and navigation tasks (Wierwille, Antin, Dingus, & Hulse, 1988). Findings indicated that glance frequency varied depending upon the task, and that glance duration for a single glance ranged from 0.62 s to 1.63 s. The mean number of glances across all tasks was between 1.26 and 6.52 glances. Zwahlen, Adams, and DeBald (1988) reported that "out of view" glance times (rear view mirror, speedometer, etc.) ranged from 0.5 s to 2.0 s during straight driving. Another example of such research is an experiment by Parkes, Ward, and Vaughan (200 1) who measured glance frequency, glance duration, and average duration per glance to evaluate two in -vehicle audio systems, in terms of total "eyes off road" time. Search and Scan Patterns Early research included the investigation of visual search and scan patterns while driving (Mourant, Rockwell, & Rackoff, 1969; Mourant & Rockwell, 1970; 1972). It was found that as drivers became familiar with a route, they spent more time looking ahead, they confined their sampling to a smaller area ahead, and they were better able to detect potential traffic threats (e.g., movement in the periphery). Mourant and Rockwell (1970) found that peripheral vision was used to monitor other vehicles and lane line markers, that novice and experienced drivers differed in their visual acquisition process, and that novice drivers may be considered to drive less safely. A recent field study investigated the influence of fatigue on critical incidents involving local short haul truck drivers (Hanowski et al., 2003). Fatigued drivers involved in critical incidents when making lane changes spent more time looking in irrelevant locations (i.e., locations other than out -the -windshield, out -the -windows, at the mirrors, or at the instrument panel). The mean proportion of time spent looking at irrelevant locations was 8%. However, during normal lane changes (not a critical event), the mean proportion of time that drivers spent looking at irrelevant locations was 3%, a significant difference. In terms of eye behavior, it appears that fatigued drivers involved in critical incidents pay less attention to relevant locations such as the road ahead and appropriate mirrors. 24 Mirror Glance Duration Based on available literature discussed in this section, mirror glance times range from 0.8 s to 1.6 s (M= 1.1 s). Searches to the rear (blind spot) appeared to require a minimum value of 0.8 s. Nagata and Kuriyama (1985) investigated the influence of driver glance behavior in obtaining information through door and fender mirror systems. For door mirror systems, they reported that the average glance duration to the near -side (i.e., right side in this case) mirror was 0.69 s. Rockwell (1988) reported that the average glance duration to the left mirror was 1.10 s (SD = 0.33 s). This finding was consistent across different participants in three different experiments over a six-year period using the same data gathering and reduction technique. Taoka (1990) modeled the eyeglance distributions of Rockwell and found they could be well represented by means of a lognormal distribution. Taoka reported that the average time for viewing the left -side mirror was also 1.1 Os (SD = 0.3 s). The 5th percentile value was 0.68 s and the 95th percentile was 1.65 s. For right side mirror glances, Nagata and Kuriyama (1985) reported that average glance duration was 1.38 s (angle difference from the vertical axis of 70 degrees), while Rockwell reported an average glance duration of 1.21 s (10% larger than left glances), with an approximate standard deviation of 0.36 s. For the rear view mirror, Taoka (1990) reported that the average glance time was 0.75 s (SD = 0.36 s). The 5th percentile value was 0.32 s and the 95th percentile was 1.43 s. Velocity Velocity (traveling speed) has been used as a measure of driving performance for several decades. For example, Brown, Tickner, and Simmonds (1969) found that driving while telephoning had a 6.6% reduction in speed as compared to driving alone, in an early closed- circuit driving experiment. They also concluded that telephoning while driving may impair perception and decision-making skills. More recently, Alm and Nilsson (1994) concluded that a mobile telephone task while driving led to a reduction in speed level. In another effort, Tijerina, Kiger, Rockwell, and Tornow (1995) assessed driver workload for commercial vehicle operators in conjunction with using an in -vehicle device. Various measures were monitored including speed variance, which was highest for activities involving radio tuning and 10 -digit cell -phone dialing tasks. Another study monitored speed for a driving study involving talking on a cell phone or talking to a passenger (Waugh, Glumm, Kilduff, Tauson, Smyth, & Pillalamarri, 2000). Results indicated that driving speeds were lower when talking on the phone as compared to talking to the passenger. It is generally recognized that tasks with high visual or cognitive demand can result in large deviations in speed. Lateral Position Lateral lane position or deviation is one of the most common measures of driver performance and distraction (Salvucci, 2002). Lane position can be measured in terms of lane exceedances (i.e., drift across the line between the current lane and the next lane) or, in the absence of actual lane crossings, lateral position in terms of distance from the center of the lane or the side lane line markings. Various researchers have used lateral position. For example, Serafm, Wen, Paelke, and Green (1993) conducted an experiment involving a driving simulator and car phone 25 tasks. Greater lane deviation was observed for dialing while driving as compared to tasks involving listening, talking, or mental processing. In another study, Alm and Nilsson (1994) reported that for difficult driving tasks, a mobile telephone task had an effect on the drivers' lateral position during various 500 m driving segments. Results indicated that the mobile - telephone task made drivers drive closer to the right lane line, especially for complex tracking tasks. In another study, Tijerina, Kiger, Rockwell, and Tornow (1995) evaluated various measures including lane position variance and lane exceedances. They concluded that lane keeping was degraded when performing message reading tasks. Again, multiple research findings indicate that high levels of visual and cognitive demand can result in a greater level of lane deviation. Participants Thirty-six participants who were familiar with the Cleveland, OH freeway system and downtown area were recruited. Participants were recruited via newspaper advertisement (Figure 3), flyers, and word of mouth. Participant selection was determined after a telephone screening and selection process. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 71, with equal gender representation (18 female, 18 male). The experimental protocol was approved by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to any contact with participants. Figure 4 illustrates an example of an experimenter seated in the experimental vehicle. Driving Study In Cleveland area, $20/hr for 2 hrs. Must be 18-35 or 50-75 yrs old w/ driver's tic. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Call 866-454-4568 or email drivers @vtti.vt.edu Figure 3: Newspaper Advertisement that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. 26 Figure 4. Experimenter Seated in Experimental Vehicle. Route and Equipment Route The pre -planned loop route was approximately 50 miles long and consisted of sections on Interstates 480, 90, and 77, as well as surface streets in downtown Cleveland, OH. Prior to collecting any data, experimenters from VTTI visited the area several times in order to determine the final route by verifying the presence of suitable billboards. A potential 65 -mile route was originally recommended by associates from Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, a local company located in Cleveland. After personal examination of the suggested route, the final 50 - mile route was selected by the VTTI research team so that it could be completed in a timely manner, while still allowing participants to be exposed to a mixture of interstate, downtown, and residential road segments. This loop contained a variety of billboards and other outdoor advertisements (e.g., on -premise signs, logo placards) as well as standard department of transportation (DOT) roadway signs. Figure 5 illustrates the final route used for data collection, while Table 3 lists the driving directions used for the experiment. The directions were mounted on the dashboard as illustrated in Figure 6. 27 Figure 5. Map of 50 -mile Daytime Loop Route in Cleveland, Ohio. 28 Table 3. Directions for 50 -mile daytime route in Cleveland, OH. Trip Directions Distance Notes 40 Left out of Residence Inn onto W. Creek Rd. 0.0 40 Left onto Rockside Rd. 0.3 y Right toward I-77 North 0.5 Go under overpass to I-77 N entrance Left lane onto I480 West / Toledo 1.1 ExIT za Right Exit 12A, tum Right onto W. 150th St. 9.9 y Right onto Puritas 10.9 Curves to Left, becomes Bellaire Left onto W. 117th 13.1 Just past entrance to I-71 y Right onto I-90 East / Cleveland 14.4 Exn 172.1 Right Exit 172-A, East 9th St. 20.1 Stay to Right y Right onto Carnegie 20.4 40 Left onto East 30th St. 21.3 DODD Camera on far left corner 40 Go 1 block, Left onto Prospect 21.4 41 Go 500 ft., Left onto 1-90 East 215 ExIT 182A Right Exit 182A, Right onto E. 185th St. 30.9 Stay in Right Lane and get onto 1-90 West to Downtown 31.2 Stay on 90 W when splits to left exrr 172A I Take Right Exit 172A to 1-77 South 41.2 Follow I-77 South to Rockside Road exit 48.2 EXIT 155 Take Exit 155 Rockside Road and Independence, tum Right onto Rockside Rd. 48.8 y Tum Right onto W. Creek Rd. 48.9 y Tum Right into Residence Inn parking lot 49.2 29 Figure 6. Directions mounted on dashboard of vehicle (this picture is from a previous experiment which used the same protocol and vehicle type). Practice Route. A short, 1.5 -mile practice route was also included. This route was driven prior to data collection on the 50 -mile loop route. During the practice route, the experimenter rode as a passenger with the participant to make sure that the participant was familiar with the directions and the vehicle's displays and controls. Table 4 lists the directions for the practice route, which was conducted on local streets near the hotel where the study began and ended. Table 4. Directions for 1.5 -mile Practice Route in Independence, Ohio. Directions Trip Distance Notes Right out of Residence Inn onto W. Creek Rd. y Right onto Jefferson Dr. Go around the traffic circle r Left onto W. Creek Rd. y Right onto Patriot's Way Straight at Stop Past Applebee's Left into Parking lots, loop back onto Patriot's Way Straight at Stop Left onto West Creek Rd. y Right into Residence Inn parking lot 1.5 tni 30 Vehicle A 2002 Chevrolet Malibu was used in this study and is shown in Figure 7. The vehicle had an automatic transmission, an adjustable steering wheel, and other standard features. Figure 7. Experimental Vehicle, 2002 Chevrolet Malibu. Data Collection System The vehicle was instrumented with a data collection system, including cameras, a computer, and sensors that continuously collected data. The system was activated approximately 2 min after the ignition was turned on and was deactivated when the driver turned it off. A video system with four cameras was used. Two cameras were mounted on the back side of the rear-view mirror --one facing forward left and the other facing forward right (Figure 8). This captured the forward views of the roadway as well as the sides where billboards and other objects were visible. The other two cameras captured the driver's face from two perspectives. One camera was mounted on the top left corner of the windshield near the A -pillar (Figure 9). The other camera was mounted just above the rear view mirror (Figure 10). Both faced the driver and captured head and eye movements. Since data reductionists needed to review all four video channels simultaneously, a quad -splitter was used to fuse the images. This produced a single, compartmentalized image such that each camera was presented in one of four locations (Figure 11). The quad splitter, computer, monitor, and keyboard were located in the trunk of the vehicle as shown in Figure 12. Finally, Figure 13 illustrates these components and shows how they interacted with sensors. Infrared illumination was used to provide adequate illumination for a smaller nighttime data collection effort, to be described later in the report. 31 Figure 8. Forward Facing Cameras Mounted Behind the Center Rear View Mirror. Figure 9. Driver Face Camera, Mounted near the left A -Pillar. 32 Figure 10. Driver Face Camera Mounted Above Rear View Mirror. Left Forward Right Forward View View Driver's Face, Driver's Face, Left Side Right Side Figure 11. Diagram of Simultaneous Presentation of Four Camera Views. 33 Figure 12. Data Acquisition System Located in Trunk of Vehicle. Lane Right Side d ---, I Tracker Forward View Quad Splitter Titler, Recording, and Storage Driver's Face Systems Left Side Figure 13. Components of the Data Collection System. All video data were recorded at 30 Hz (30 frames per s), using MPEG 4 compression algorithms at a rate of 4 MB per minute. Driving performance data, including lane position and velocity, were collected at 10 Hz (10 times per s). The lane tracking system used fuzzy logic and statistical probabilities to detect lane edges in the forward camera view. Lane position was collected with a resolution of f2 inches from the center of the lane. Raw performance data, including lane position, velocity, and video data, were saved on the hard drive of a laptop computer and then backed up onto individual DVDs for each participant. After each trial, the experimenter reviewed the data to assure that the data collection system performed to specification. 34 Procedure Participant Recruitment and Screening Straight -text newspaper advertisements were placed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Figure 3) and flyers were posted in strategic locations in Cleveland, OH to solicit volunteer participants for the study. Respondents were instructed to contact the experimenter via email or by telephone. A telephone/email screening form (Appendix A) was used to collect general information on age, gender, medical, and driving history, familiarity with the route(s), and use of corrective lenses or sunglasses. A list of potential participants was compiled as screenings were completed, and participants who met all of the required criteria were then contacted to set up an appointment for participation. The participant met the experimenter on the appropriate date and time in the hotel lobby of the Residence Inn on West Creek Road, in Independence, OH (just south of Cleveland). Experimental Protocol Upon arrival, each participant presented a valid driver's license for the experimenter's inspection. Each participant then completed an informed consent form (Appendix B) and a health screening questionnaire (Appendix Q. Participants also completed a vision test using a Snellen eye chart. Only participants with vision of 20/40 or better were eligible to participate. Participants received an orientation (including the practice route), drove the 50 -mile experimental route, completed a post -drive questionnaire (Appendix D), and received $20/hr for their time. Most participants completed the experiment in less than two hours. All procedures for recruitment and data collection were approved by the Virginia Tech IRB, as required by federal and state law. In all, 36 drivers were recruited for the full experiment. Another participant completed the experiment, but the data were not used because it rained during most of the session. Of the 36 drivers who completed the experiment, 3 repeated the experiment on a later date due to rain. That is, their initial data were not used and were replaced with the second driving session. The order in which participants were run in the experiment is shown in Table 5. 35 Table 5. Order of Partici ation shown by Age and Gender). Number AgeGrp Gender 1 O M 2 O M 3 Y M 4 O M 5 Y F 6 Y F 7 O F 8 Y F 9 O F 10 Y M 11 O F 12 Y M 13 O M 14 O M 15 Y M 16 O F 17 O F 18 O F 19 O M 20 Y F 21 Y M 22 Y F 23 Y F 24 O M 25 Y F 26 O F 27 O M 28 Y M 29 O F 30 Y F 31 Y F 32 O F 33 Y M 34 Y M 35 Y M 36 Y F The informed consent form explained the general purpose of the experiment to the driver and obtained his/her permission to participate in the study. After the required paperwork was completed, the following script describing the experiment was read aloud to the participant: Today we will have you drive a pre -determined loop route along major freeways and highways. The vehicle that you will be operating is specially equipped with instruments that collect information about your driving habits. The purpose of this 36 study is to collect information about the way people drive under normal circumstances, in order to improve driver safety. We want you to drive as you would if you were in your own vehicle and were driving, for example, to visit a friend, do an errand, or go to work. With this in mind, we will also want you to obey all typical traffic regulations as you normally would, including, but not limited to, posted speed limits, lane markings, and traffic control devices (such as stoplights). I will be riding in the passenger seat during a 5 -minute orientation drive. You are welcome to ask questions if necessary, as this orientation will help you become familiar with the vehicle and its controls. As always, our first priority is your safety. If at any time you feel uncomfortable please inform me and we can make any necessary adjustments or end the study early. After the 5 -minute orientation, I will exit the vehicle and have you drive the pre- determined route, which will bring you back to this location. This route will take about 1.5 hours. A map and written instructions will be provided for your reference, and I will also review the route with you before you depart. After the route is completed, I will debrief you and the session will be complete. Do you have any questions I can answer at this time? The experimenter then reviewed the map (Figure 5) and directions (Table 4) in detail. A laminated copy of the map was stored in the glove compartment for easy reference. A laminated copy of the directions was prominently displayed on the dashboard (Figure 6). A cellular telephone was also stored in the glove compartment for emergency use only. The experimenter then oriented the participant to the vehicle, including adjustment of the seat, seat belt, mirrors, and steering wheel. Displays and controls were also reviewed, including a review of the map, directions, and cell phone operation instructions. The participant then drove the 5 -minute orientation route, with verbal reminders provided by the experimenter when required. After the orientation route was completed, the experimenter checked the data, reminded the participant to drive as he/she normally would, and then returned to the hotel. The participant drove the 50 -mile loop route, which eventually brought him/her back to the hotel. After the experiment, in -vehicle eyeglance calibration was completed in the hotel parking lot. With the vehicle parked, the experimenter sat in the passenger seat and provided verbal instructions. The protocol included having the participant sit as if driving, while alternating 3 - second glances to various locations with a default forward glance location. The glances included left blind spot, left window, left mirror, left forward, forward, right forward, right mirror, right window, right blind spot, rear view mirror, instrument panel (speedometer), and climate and radio controls. After the eyeglance calibration, the participant and the experimenter returned to the hotel lobby, where the post -drive questionnaire was completed (Appendix D). The experimenter then reviewed the questionnaire to make sure that all of the answers were legible. Item #3, "Please check the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive," included a "Billboards" option (among a list of 18 possible items). If the experimenter noticed that 37 "Billboards" had been marked, she asked about every checked item in an attempt to discover the details as to what caught their attention. For the billboard item specifically, the experimenter noted what aspect of the billboard caught the participant's attention, without conveying the importance of that particular topic. Payment was then issued to the driver at a rate of $20 per hour, (2 hours in most cases, for a total of $40) and a payment log was signed to verify that funds were received. At no time was the participant made aware that this experiment was related to driving behavior regarding billboards or other roadside items. Data for each participant were briefly reviewed to verify that all the cameras were operating correctly and that data had been recorded. Data and video files were then transferred from the data collection system's computer to a portable laptop computer. Each participant's data were copied onto a separate DVD as a second back-up measure. The results from the post -drive questionnaire were then entered into an Excel spreadsheet for later processing. Data Reduction Analyst Training Two data analysts worked on this project under the supervision of the principal investigator. All analysts were experienced in video data reduction prior to this project. Training began with a 2 - hour session in which the user manual was reviewed and the analysis software was demonstrated by the experimenter. Relevant functions were shown, and the process of how to load the map and associated GPS coordinates was explained. Prior to actual data analysis, each analyst spent an additional eight hours mastering eyeglance direction determination and spreadsheet use. This period included time with an experienced analyst present. A large part of that time was dedicated to establishing inter -analyst reliability by comparing judgments and modifying techniques until all analysts' independent determinations matched. Throughout the entire analysis effort, at least one experienced analyst was available at all times to answer any questions or review particular cases as needed. "Spot checks" were performed throughout the data reduction process, with input provided as needed to maintain a high level of consistency. Robust reliability was further assured by ascertaining that each analyst recorded a portion of the data from each participant (i.e., a portion of the data for each of the 36 participants was analyzed by each analyst). As events were completed, a written record was created with the analyst's initials and date of completion. Software This section outlines the data reduction software program developed to analyze digital billboard, conventional billboard, comparison, and baseline events. The software, currently called DART (Data Analysis and Reduction Tools), was originally developed by software engineers at VTTI for a large-scale naturalistic driving study known as the 100 Car Study (Dingus, Klauer, Neale, Petersen, Lee, et al., 2006). This program integrates Microsoft MapPoint 2003 using GPS data for billboard, comparison, and baseline site locations with the data obtained from the multiple sensors in the test vehicle via a graphical interface. A total of 36 files (representing the route driven for each participant) were analyzed. After a file was opened, the software presented the analyst with the relevant windows required for data identification and reduction. The MapPoint 38 application allowed the analyst to view a map of the Cleveland, OH area, showing the relationship between the site and the roads, so that video could be compared with GPS data during site identification and eyeglance analysis. The map illustrated the route and the location of the vehicle, which was represented by a green vehicle icon that moved as the event was played. This map served solely as a visual display and could not be manipulated. Procedure Data reduction was performed by the two analysts for each of the 36 data files. This occurred in three steps: software preparation, event identification, and eyeglance analysis. Analysts were blind as to which event type was being analyzed (in other words, they knew the event only by its number, and did not know what type of event was contained in that segment of data). This was done to insure impartiality in this aspect of the data reduction (event identification and eyeglance reduction were the only two aspects of data analysis which had a subjective component; this was compensated for by re -doing 10% of the events and calculating inter -rater reliability). Event Identification Analysts first used the DART software to identify the locations of interest. The GPS coordinates for each location were entered into a master map. Each file was then opened and the DART software suggested the correct point for each location of interest based on the master GPS list. The analyst compared the forward view shown in the video with a master file of forward views and adjusted the event timing slightly if necessary to make sure the forward views were the same for every participant (thus providing a common geographic point of reference for each event analyzed). The end of an event was defined as the sync number (time reference) at which the test vehicle passed the site, and the event's beginning was calculated to be eight seconds before the end point. Identification of the end point thus combined two methods: the GPS data was used to align the vehicle directly in conjunction with the site, and then the video was used to visually confirm accurate GPS positioning using comparison to a master file of forward views. Eyeglance Analysis Once all of the events were correctly identified and stored in the database, the analysts conducted the eyeglance analysis for each event. The first step in eyeglance analysis was familiarization with the participant's individual glance patterns by means of a glance location calibration video, during which participants looked at specific places according to a set script. Analysts referred often to the calibration file collected for each participant to make sure that the glance locations were being coded correctly. As described in the procedures section, eye calibration was conducted after data collection was complete, in order to serve as a record of how a particular driver's glance to particular location is shown in video. Analysts reviewed these records in order to become familiar with the 39 participant's glance style. The analyst was thus able to conduct the glance analysis according to each participant's glance style. Glances were coded according to the following abbreviations: F - Forward RF - Right Forward LF - Left Forward RVM - Rear View Mirror OX - Outer eXterior, including side mirrors, side windows, blind spot, etc. DIR — glances toward the experimental route DIRections OINT - Other INTerior, including speedometer, sun visor, cell phone, etc. Analysts reviewed events from beginning to end, one tenth of a second at a time, determining the direction of glance for every tenth of a second for the eight -second duration of the event. New glances were recorded as the sync number at which the participant's glance rested in a new location. Transition time to the new location was included in the glance location the driver was moving away from. The DART program automatically calculated the duration of each glance. Summary information for each event included the number of glances, average glance duration, number of glances in each direction, and the average duration of glances in each direction. The final inter -rater reliability for the eyeglance reduction process was 96.5%, which is considered quite good. Approximately 5% of the daytime events were analyzed by both raters independently, resulting in 8,084 individual glance locations, each lasting 0.1 s. The agreement between raters for each location was compared; the 96.5% reliability means that the raters were in agreement for 7,804 glance locations. Final Reduced Data Set With 36 participants and 44 sites, there were 1,584 events available for analysis from approximately 63 hours of data collection. A small amount of data was lost due to cell phone use, sensor outages, sun angle, and vehicle stoppages, leaving 1,540 events for eyeglance analyses. Altogether, 124,740 video frames were analyzed (1,540 events x 81 frames/event) and 8,678 individual glances were identified. The speed data was filtered to remove events as described above, and then further filtered to remove events in which the maximum speed failed to read 20 mph or the minimum speed failed to reach 15 mph, leaving 1,494 events in this dataset, with 121,014 data points for speed. The lane position dataset was further filtered to remove events indicating a possible lane change or lane position sensor failure (often due to poor lane markings). After filtering, there were 1,188 events remaining in the lane position dataset, with 96,228 data points. Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated using Excel. All other statistical analyses were conducted using SAS statistical software. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical technique was used; in SAS this was accomplished by means of the general linear model (GLM) procedure. Where significant differences were found, and there were more than two levels of the independent variable, a post -hoc analysis was run using the Least Squares Difference procedure till in SAS to determine which levels were significantly different from which other levels. (For independent variables with just two levels that differ significantly, a simple examination of the means will demonstrate which level is significantly greater than the other.) Nighttime Study A smaller exploratory study was also conducted at nighttime using an abbreviated route that avoided some of the downtown streets. Given that the digital signs being studied were intrinsically illuminated, this was felt to be an important first step in determining whether there are driver performance differences in the presence of these signs under different levels of ambient illumination. All of the nighttime drivers had previously driven the route during the daytime and were thus somewhat familiar with the route (so were unlikely to get lost or go off route). The nighttime route directions arc shown in Table 6, while the order of participation is shown in Table 7 (12 of the 36 drivers retained for the nighttime experiment). The nighttime route map is shown in Figure 14. Table 6. Nighttime Driving Directions. Trio Directions Distance Notes 40 Left out of Residence Inn onto W. Creek Rd. 0.0 Left onto Rockside Rd. 0.3 Right toward I-77 North OS Go under overpass to 1-77 N entrance Left lane onto I480 West / Toledo 1.1 rxiT i a\ Right Exit 12A, tum Right onto W. 150th St. 9.9 y Right onto Puritas 10.9 Curves to Left, becomes Bellaire Left onto W. 117th 13.1 lust past entrance to 1-71 Right onto 1-90 East / Cleveland 14.4 F-vr 82:\ Right Exit 182A, Right onto E. 185th St. 30.1 Stay in Right Lane and get onto I-90 West to Downtown 30.4 Stay on 90 W when splits to left I NIT 112.1 Take Right Exit 172A to 1-77 South 40.3 Follow I-77 South to Rockside Road exit 47.3 EXIT L-L5-5 I Take Exit 155 Rockside Road and Independence. tum Right onto Rockside Rd. 47.9 Tun Right onto W. Creek Rd. 48.0 y Tum Right into Residence Inn parking lot 48.3 41 Figure 14. Map Illustrating Nighttime Route with Digital Billboards (black), Conventional Billboards (red), Comparison Sites (aqua blue), and Baseline Sites (blue). Table 7. Nighttime order of participation. Number Age group Gender 1 Younger Female 2 Older Male 3 Older Female 4 Older Female 5 Younger Female 6 Older Male 7 Younger Male 8 Younger Male 9 Older Female 10 Older Male 11 Younger Male 12 Younger Female 42 With 12 participants and 40 sites, there were 480 events available for analysis from approximately 42 hours of data collection. A small amount of data was lost due to cell phone use, sensor outages, and vehicle stoppages, leaving 470 events for eyeglance analyses. Altogether, 38,070 video frames were analyzed (470 events x 81 frames/event) and 2,335 individual glances were identified. The speed data was filtered to remove events as described above, and then further filtered to remove events in which the maximum speed failed to read 20 mph or the minimum speed failed to reach 15 mph, leaving 456 events in this dataset, with 36,936 data points for speed. The lane position dataset was further filtered to remove events indicating a possible lane change or lane position sensor failure (often due to poor lane markings). After filtering, there were 411 events remaining in the lane position dataset, with 33,291 data points. Because the nighttime study was exploratory in nature with fewer data points, these data are shown descriptively, but were not analyzed statistically (due to lack of statistical power). 43 RESULTS Post -Drive Questionnaire — Daytime Results Participants completed the post -drive questionnaire (Appendix D) after they returned from driving the daytime driving route as well as the nighttime route. The questionnaire gathered information such as route familiarity and items noticed while driving; it also collected demographic and personal information, including education level, marital status, ethnicity, and income. The questionnaire was the same one used by Lee et al. (2004) in the previous study using similar methods. The following sections summarize all questionnaire results for the daytime drivers, followed by a section describing the results for the nighttime drivers. Demographics Overview In terms of demographics, the average age was 28 years for younger drivers and 59 years for older drivers. The sample of drivers was quite diverse in terms of education level, marital status, and income. All drivers lived and worked in the Cleveland, OH area and were familiar with some or most of the route. The following sections provide details for relevant information about the sample of drivers. Table 8 presents these findings as well. Are. The sample of 36 drivers ranged in age from 18 to 71 years old. The mean age of all participants was 43.3 years (SD = 16.7). The younger drivers ranged in age from 18 to 35 years old, with a mean of 27.9 years (SD = 6.0). The older drivers ranged in age from 50 to 71 years old, with a mean of 58.7 years (SD = 6.1). Education Level. Participants were surveyed regarding the highest education level they had completed. The number of responses and equivalent number of years were used to calculate the product. This was used to calculate the mean education level for the sample by dividing the total number of years completed by the number of participants (482/36). The average was 13.4 years of education completed (equivalent to high school plus a year and a half of college). Most of the participants had finished high school, but few had attended college. Marital Status. Half of the participants were married, while 28% reported that they were single and 17% were divorced. Two individuals (5.6%) indicated that they were separated. Ethnicity. Most participants were European (Caucasian/White) with only one participant identifying herself as African American. Income. The income level with the most participants was the group earning between $25,000 and $49,000 per year (16 participants or 44%). 44 Table 8. Summary of Demographic Results for All Daytime Participants. CATEGORY LEVELS Age (mean) Younger Drivers Older Drivers All Drivers 143.3 vears B.A./B.S. 122.2% 27.9 years 58.7 years Education Level High Sch. 2 -Yr Deg. 52.8% 25.0% Marital Status Single Married Divorced Separated 27.8% 50.0% 16.7% 15.6% Ethnicity African American European 2.8% 97.2% Income Level $0-24K $25-49K $50-74K >$100K 33.3% 44.4% 19.4% 12.8% Route Familiarity Route familiarity was assessed by three items in the questionnaire. Specific topics addressed were: location of work, location of home, and frequency of driving on roads in the experimental route (defined as familiarity). Table 9 presents the route familiarity findings. Living and Working Location. All drivers reported that they were familiar with the Cleveland, OH area and had driven on the interstates and surface roads included in the route. All of the participants lived in the Cleveland area, and those who were employed also worked in the area. Cleveland proper, Parma, and Independence were the most common locations where participants lived and worked, with 39% of participants reporting that that they both lived and worked in one of these three areas (Independence and Parma are adjacent suburbs of Cleveland). Familiarity. Route familiarity was also evaluated in terms of five route segments that represented various types of driving (i.e., various segments of interstate and downtown Cleveland). Drivers were asked to indicate if they were either "familiar" (driven at least once a week) or "not familiar" (driven less than one time a week) with each segment. In some cases, participants inquired about this question item, indicating (verbally) that, although they were quite familiar with certain areas, they may not drive on them every week. Nonetheless, the results indicated that overall, drivers were familiar with the route, particularly I-480 W between I-77 and WI 50th (83% were familiar with this segment as shown in Table 9). 45 Table 9. Route Segment Familiarity for All Daytime Participants. Overview of What Drivers Noticed Drivers primarily noticed items such as traffic and other drivers, road or highway signs, and road construction. Fifteen of 36 drivers (42%) marked "billboards" as one of the top 5 items (out of 18 items) that caught their attention during the drive. Participants engaged in a variety of activities while driving; listening to the radio or CD player and using the cell phone were the most prevalent. At no point was it apparent that any participant knew the specific purpose of the study; all responses indicated that drivers believed the study was related to observing drivers in a natural driving situation, which was also true. The following sub -sections describe findings in more detail, with tables illustrating drivers' responses. Attention Getters. Participants were asked to indicate "the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive." Over 50% of drivers indicated that they paid attention to traffic, road signs, exit signs, and other drivers. The top 9 items (out of 18 listed) are shown in Figure 15. For those drivers who indicated "billboard" as one of the items that caught their attention, the experimenter asked them to verbally expand upon all items; however, none of these drivers made any additional comments about billboards except that they caught their attention. Three drivers (8%) mentioned billboard under a separate question regarding the single most memorable part of the drive. Their comments were "The lighted billboards," "Ridiculous billboards," and "The light up billboards." A fourth driver mentioned "Markers and signs" but did not elaborate further. Even in the daytime, the digital billboards appeared to have been noticeably different from conventional billboards and appeared to attract a certain amount of attention. 46 Route Segment I -480W W.I30th- 1-90 Carnegie 1-77 between I- Bellaire - between Ave. between I- 77 and W.I 17th 9th and 90 and % W 150th 185th Rockside 83% 42% 64% 67% 72% Familiar Overview of What Drivers Noticed Drivers primarily noticed items such as traffic and other drivers, road or highway signs, and road construction. Fifteen of 36 drivers (42%) marked "billboards" as one of the top 5 items (out of 18 items) that caught their attention during the drive. Participants engaged in a variety of activities while driving; listening to the radio or CD player and using the cell phone were the most prevalent. At no point was it apparent that any participant knew the specific purpose of the study; all responses indicated that drivers believed the study was related to observing drivers in a natural driving situation, which was also true. The following sub -sections describe findings in more detail, with tables illustrating drivers' responses. Attention Getters. Participants were asked to indicate "the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive." Over 50% of drivers indicated that they paid attention to traffic, road signs, exit signs, and other drivers. The top 9 items (out of 18 listed) are shown in Figure 15. For those drivers who indicated "billboard" as one of the items that caught their attention, the experimenter asked them to verbally expand upon all items; however, none of these drivers made any additional comments about billboards except that they caught their attention. Three drivers (8%) mentioned billboard under a separate question regarding the single most memorable part of the drive. Their comments were "The lighted billboards," "Ridiculous billboards," and "The light up billboards." A fourth driver mentioned "Markers and signs" but did not elaborate further. Even in the daytime, the digital billboards appeared to have been noticeably different from conventional billboards and appeared to attract a certain amount of attention. 46 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 83% . 420/6 42°k ocv Figure 15. Top Daytime Attention Getters (top nine of eighteen possible). Most Memorable. Participants were asked "What was most memorable about the drive?" This was an open-ended question, so the comments varied. For ease of categorization, similar comments were grouped where possible. There were 35 comments. Over 68% of the comments were related to construction, weather/view, the experimental vehicle, or traffic, as presented in Table 10. Table 10. Number and Percent of Comments for Daytime Participants for the Question: "What was most memorable about the drive? For example, were there any objects that stood out?" Comment Categories Number of Comments Percent of Comments Other Vehicles/Traffic 7 17.5% New Route/feature about route 6 15.0% Lake 5 12.5% WeatherNiew 4 10.0% Test Vehicle 3 7.5% Digital Billboards/Billboards/signs 3 7.5% Neighborhoods 3 7.5% Rough Road 3 7.5% Relaxing/Positive trip 2 5.0% Construction 1 2.5% Near accident/Accident 1 2.5% Sports Arena 1 2.5% 47 What Bothers You? Participants were asked, "What bothers you about other drivers?" This was an open-ended question, so the comments varied. For ease of categorization, similar comments were grouped where possible. A total of 30 comments were made. The large majority of the comments were related to aggressive maneuvers or questionable driving behavior such as tailgating, being cut off, not using turn signals, or driving slowly in the fast lane (Table 11). Table 11. Number and Percent of Comments for Daytime Participants in Response to the Question: "Does anything about other drivers bother you? If so, please briefly describe." Comment Category Number of Comments Percent of Comments Tailgating 7 23.3% Cut off 6 20.0% No signal 5 16.7% Speedinp, 3 10.0% Aggressive 3 10.0% Slow in fast lane 3 10.0% Cell phone talking 1 3.3% Drivers who don't pay attention 1 3.3% Inability to adjust to conditions 1 3.3% Other Activities. Participants were asked, "What other activities do you engage in while driving?" Again, this was open-ended and the comments varied, but similar comments were grouped where possible. There were 72 comments in all. Listening to the radio or CDs was the largest single activity, making up over 26% of the comments. Using the cell phone was also common (151/6). Other activities included singing or talking, drinking, smoking cigarettes, and eating, as presented in Table 12. 48 Table 12. Number and Percent of Comments for Daytime Participants in Response to the Question: "What other activities do you typically engage in while driving?" Comment Categories Number of Comments Percent of Comments Listen to radio/CDs 21 38.9% Cell phone 11 20.4% Smoking 4 7.4% Eating 4 7.4% Drinking 3 5.6% Talk w/others 3 5.6% Adjust radio/CDs 2 3.7% Driving/steering 2 3.7% Adjust AC/windows 1 1.9% Look for something 1 1.9% Homework 1 1.9% Read directions/map 1 1.9% Other questions asked participants for additional input about the written directions and the purpose of the study. Substantively relevant participant responses included three separate suggestions relating to conducting a driving study with passengers or children, the effect of video cameras on driving behavior, and the statement that "driving in my own car would be more `nominal.' " While no one reported problems with the directions, three drivers did get off -route at one point during their trip; however, very few data points were missed. Drivers were also queried as to their recollection of the purpose of the study; all responses were within the scope of what they had been told verbally and in the informed consent form. Post -Drive Questionnaire — Nighttime Results Age The sample of 12 nighttime drivers ranged in age from 25 to 62 years old and consisted of drivers who had recently performed the daytime portion of the experiment. As for the main experiment, the participant pool was balanced for age and gender. The mean age of the nighttime participants was 44.5 years (SD = 14.0). The younger drivers ranged in age from 25 to 35 years old, with a mean of 31.5 years (SD = 4.1). The older drivers ranged in age from 54 to 62 years old, with a mean of 57.5 years (SD = 3.3). The demographics for these 12 drivers are summarized in Table 13. 49 Table 13. Summary of Demographic Results for All Nighttime Participants. CATEGORY Route Segment LEVELS I480W Age (mean) Younger Drivers Older Drivers All Drivers 31.5 years 57.5 years 44.5 years Education Level High Sch. 2 -Yr Deg. B.A./B.S. 58.3% 25.0% 16.7% Marital Status Sing le Married Divorced 8.3% 66.7% 25.0% Ethnicity European 100.0% Rockside Income Level $0-24K $25-49K $5o -74K 16.7% 41.7%1 41.7% Route Familiarity Route familiarity was assessed by three items in the questionnaire. Specific topics addressed were: location of work, location of home, and frequency of driving on roads in the experimental route (defined as familiarity). As before, all nighttime drivers lived and worked in the Cleveland, OH area. Route familiarity was also evaluated in terms of five route segments that represented various types of driving (i.e., various segments of interstate). Drivers were asked to indicate if they were either "familiar" (driven at least once a week) or "not familiar" (driven less than one time a week) with each segment. Table 14 presents the route familiarity findings. Table 14. Route Segment Familiarity for All Nighttime Participants. Attention Getters Participants were asked to indicate "the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive." Over 50% of drivers indicated that they paid attention to traffic, road signs, billboards, and exits. Figure 16 shows the top nine nighttime attention getters. For those drivers who indicated "billboard" as one of the items that caught their attention, the experimenter asked them to verbally expand upon all items, but no one made any remarks relevant to billboards. However, 3 of the 12 nighttime drivers (25%) noted billboards as being the single most memorable thing about the drive. One person just said `Billboards," another said "I saw a billboard that changed and I wished it hadn't because I wanted to read the previous message," and a third said "One billboard." This is much higher than the 8% who mentioned billboards as 50 Route Segment I480W W.130th - I-90 Carnegie I-77 between I- Bellaire - between Ave. I between I- 77 and W.I 17th 9th and 90 and W150th 185th Rockside % Familiar 75% 42% 58% 58% 50% Attention Getters Participants were asked to indicate "the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive." Over 50% of drivers indicated that they paid attention to traffic, road signs, billboards, and exits. Figure 16 shows the top nine nighttime attention getters. For those drivers who indicated "billboard" as one of the items that caught their attention, the experimenter asked them to verbally expand upon all items, but no one made any remarks relevant to billboards. However, 3 of the 12 nighttime drivers (25%) noted billboards as being the single most memorable thing about the drive. One person just said `Billboards," another said "I saw a billboard that changed and I wished it hadn't because I wanted to read the previous message," and a third said "One billboard." This is much higher than the 8% who mentioned billboards as 50 being most memorable during the daytime, and may be a reflection of the nature of the digital billboards. 100% 80% 6"q -- 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent FNS/. SRO/ CO �a�I"'ZiFahy o��f, \p t0 Je Z3� oa Figure 16. Top Nighttime Attention Getters (top nine of eighteen possible). Most Memorable Participants were asked "What was most memorable about the drive?" This was an open-ended question, so the comments varied. For ease of categorization, similar comments were grouped where possible. There were nine comments from the 12 nighttime drivers. As mentioned, three comments concerned billboards, while other common answers included the views and other vehicles and traffic, as presented in Table 15. The drivers had previously answered the general questions regarding "What bothers you about other drivers?" and "What other activities do you engage in while driving?" during their daytime session, so these were not asked again here. Likewise, the responses to "What is the purpose of this study?" were similar to what the same participants had said during the daytime session; all responses were within the scope of what they had been told verbally and in the informed consent form. 51 Table 15. Number and Percent of Comments for Nighttime Participants in Response to the Question: "What was most memorable about the drive? For example, were there any objects that stood out?" Comment Categories Frequency Digital Billboards/Billboards 3 View 2 Other Vehicles/Traffic 2 Positive trip 1 Personal condition while driving I Driving Performance Results — Daytime Event Type Eve -glance Results. With regard to eyeglance behavior, there were six questions of interest, each of which will be discussed in tum: 1. Does eyes -on -road percent (looking straight forward) vary in the presence of different eventtypes? 2. Is there a more active glance pattern in the presence of certain event types (as measured by the number of individual glances to any location during the eight seconds of the event)? 3. For events on the left side of the road, are there more glances in the left forward direction for certain event types? 4. For events on the right side of the road, are there more glances in the right forward direction for certain event types? 5. For events on the left side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the left forward direction vary according to event type? 6. For events on the right side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the right forward direction vary according to event type? 7. Are longer glances (longer than 1.6 s) associated more with any of the event types? 52 Question I (Does eyes -on -road percent (looking straight forward) vary in the presence of different event types?) was answered by examining the amount of time spend looking straight forward in the course of an event, and dividing it by 8 s to obtain the percentage of time the driver was looking forward. As shown in Figure 17, this ranged between 70% and 75% for the various event types, with baseline, digital billboard, and conventional billboard being close to equal. Statistical analysis showed that this measure did vary across event types (F3,96= 11.62, p < 0.0001, using an a of 0.05 as a criterion, as is standard for studies of this type). The comparison events had significantly less eyes -on -road percent than did the other event types, which did not vary from one another. 100% i ■ percent Eyes -On -Road 80% - 76.7% 70.1% 75.5% _ 74.1% . 60% 20% 0% Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 17. Percent Eyes -on -Road Time for the Four Event Types. (Comparison events were significantly lower than the other three event types, which did not differ from one another). 53 Question 2 (Is there a more active glance pattern in the presence of certain event types?) was measured by examining the number of individual glances to any location during the eight seconds of the event. A higher mean number of glances during the eight seconds indicated a more active scanning pattern. As shown in Figure 18, there were very few differences in the overall glance activity. The statistical analysis verified this observation, showing no significant differences between event types (173,96 =1.78, p = 0.1564). Questions 1 and 2 were aimed at the larger question of whether overall driver eyeglance behavior changed in the presence of certain event types. In other words, did driver total time looking forward change in the presence of certain event types, and did drivers exhibit a more active glance pattern for certain event types? Except for lower eyes -on -road time for comparison events, there were no observed differences in overall eyeglance patterns. The next four questions are concerned with the specific eyeglance patterns that might be expected to occur if drivers were allocating more visual attention to specific objects located on the side of the road. 7.00 I ■ Mean Number of Glances (to any location) During an Eoent 6.00 5.75 5.48 ----- - W � 5.00 C A 4.00 w O y 3.00 a 2.00 — z 11 1.00 M Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 18. Mean Number of Glances to Any Location During an Event. (There were no significant differences between event types.) 54 Question 3 (For events on the left side of the road, are there more glances in the left forward direction for certain event types?) was aimed at the question of whether the presence of a site of interest on the side of the road was related to a greater number of glances in that direction. All baseline events were included in this analysis since these events were considered to have been located on both sides of the road. As can be seen in Figure 19, digital billboards to the left side of the road did garner a larger number of left forward glances during the eight seconds than did any of the other event types. However, statistical analysis showed that these differences were not significant (F3,73 = 1.49, p = 0.2244). i11 1.60 A 1.20 a 1.00 0.60 Z 0.40 [lpff M Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Biboard Event Type Figure 19. Mean Number of Left Forward Glances for Events on the Left Side of the Road. (There were no significant differences between event types.) 55 Question 4 (For events on the right side of the road, are there more glances in the right forward direction for certain event types?) was similar in intent, but used events on the right side of the road and right forward glances. Again, all baseline events were included in this analysis since these events were considered to have been located on both sides of the road. As can be seen in Figure 20, there appeared to be little difference in the number of right forward glances across event types. Statistical analysis showed that the observed differences were not significant (F3,77 = 0.29, p = 0.8353). 2.00 1.80 1.60 N 1.40 C 10 1.20 0 1.00 � 0.80 E 0.60 Z 0.40 tlXil no r1 ■ Mean Number of Right Forward Glances for Events to the Right 1.48 1.61 Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 20. Mean Number of Right Forward Glances for Events on the Right Side of the Road. (None of the observed differences were significant.) 56 Question 5 (For events on the left side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the left forward direction vary according to event type?) was measured by examining the mean single glance time for left forward glances. Longer glances in the left forward direction for events to the left could indicate that the driver is paying greater visual attention to the event. Figure 21 shows that the digital billboard and comparison event types had longer mean single glance times than did baseline or conventional billboard events. Statistical analysis showed that these differences were significant (F3,73 = 3.59,p = 0.0176). Post hoc analysis showed that the digital billboards to the left had significantly longer left forward glances than did conventional billboards or baseline sites, but that they did not differ from comparison sites. Comparison sites differed from baseline sites, but not from conventional billboard sites, and conventional billboards and baseline sites did not differ from one another. 1.40 1.20 ■ Mean Single Glance Duration- Left Forward I BC — - 1.00_ A 0.78 0.83 0.80 _- C 0.60 0.56 0.40 0.20 0.00 Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 21. Mean Single Glance Time for Left Forward Glances for Events on the Left Side of the Road. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.) 57 Question 6 (For events on the right side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the right forward direction vary according to event type?) was similar to Question 5 in approach, except that it examined right forward glances and events to the right. Statistical analysis showed that the observed differences were significant (F3.77 = 3.73, p = 0.0147). Post -hoc tests showed that digital billboards located on the right had significantly longer glance times to the right than did either baseline events or conventional billboards, but did not differ significantly from comparison events. Comparison events had longer glance times than did baseline events, but did not differ significantly from conventional billboards. Conventional billboards also had significantly longer glances than did baseline events. 1.40 ■ Mean Single Glance Duration - Right Forward 1.20 A AB 1.03 1.00 — - 0.94 Me 0.20 H7J Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 22. Mean Single Glance Time for Right Forward Glances for Events on the Right Side of the Road. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.) 613 C w 0.80 0.67 0 rn 0.60 - Me 0.20 H7J Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 22. Mean Single Glance Time for Right Forward Glances for Events on the Right Side of the Road. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.) 613 Question 7 (Are longer glances (longer than 1.6 s) associated more with any of the event types?) follows an approach provided by Horrey and Wickens (2007), who suggest analyzing the tails of the distributions whenever eyeglance analysis is performed. Various researchers have suggested that longer glances may be associated with poorer driving performance. For example, Wierwille (1993) suggests a 1.6 s criterion as representing a long glance away from the forward roadway. As shown in Figure 23, the distributions of glance duration were similar across all event types, and there was no obvious pattern of longer glances being associated with any of the event types. e 30% m � 25% F3 20% `0 15% 10% 0 5% 4 0% O O O 01 04 ♦ 1 1� 1 N 1A 111 11 ti Glance Length (s) Baseline Conventional Billboard e 30% m 25% 20% — -- c 15% m 10% 5% O OM1 0y O� O 1 1 1 9 ti M1 ti M1' ti Glance Length (s) h sur, m � 25% —5 20% `0 15% 10% m 5% u 0% 30% v u 25 20% `6 15% a 10% a 5% a 0% Glance Length (s) comparison Digital Billboard Figure 23. Tails analysis for the distribution of glance duration, (method described in Horrey and Wickens, 2007). 59 Discussion of Daytime EyeWance Results. Results showed that digital billboards were not associated with changes in overall glance patterns (overall number of glances or percent eyes -on - road time). Likewise, digital billboards were not associated with more frequent glances towards the direction where the billboard was located. However, digital billboards in both the left and right directions were associated with longer glances in that direction. There were only five digital billboards along the route (these were all that were available). This led to low statistical power for the digital comparisons, especially when the digital billboards were separated into left and right (two in one direction and three in the other). To increase power and verify the above findings, the data were next aggregated so that all glances in the direction where an event was located were included. For glance frequency, there were still no significant differences in the number of glances depending on event type (F3,91 = 1.22, p = 0.3065). For glance duration, the findings from above were also confirmed with this combined analysis (F3,91 = 4.98, p = 0.0030). Digital billboards and comparison sites did not differ from one another, but each differed from conventional billboards and baseline events. Conventional billboards and baseline events did not differ from one another; these results are shown in Figure 24. 1.4 ■Mean Single Glance Duration in Direction of Events 1.2 A A 0.92 B 0.8 -'� -tIA! p 0.63 d 0.6 - 0.4 0.2 - 0.0 — Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 24. Mean Single Glance Time for Glances in the Direction of Events. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.) It should also be noted that digital billboards did not differ in glance duration from comparison events for left side, right side, or the combined comparison. Several of the comparison events had a digital component, but in the form of on -premises signing rather than as billboards. One comparison event used full motion video at times. Thus, it is not surprising that these event types revealed similar glance duration patterns. Finally, it should be noted that the results for conventional billboards were similar to those found in the Charlotte study, with very few differences between conventional billboards and either comparison events or baseline events. G9] Sneed maintenance. As shown in Figure 25, there were differences in the standard deviation of speed for the different event types. These differences were statistically significant (F3,96 = 5.33, p = 0.00 19), with conventional billboards showing a higher speed deviation than baseline and digital billboards, but not different from comparison sites. Baseline events, comparison events, and digital billboards did not differ from one another. Much of this difference may be because there is typically greater speed deviation on surface streets than on interstates, and all of the digital billboards were on interstates. To account for this in the research design, the same analysis was conducted, but using only events occurring on interstates. In this analysis, there were no significant differences in standard deviation of speed (173,96 = 1.66, p = 0. 1819), as shown in Figure 26. 1,0 ■ Standard Deviation of Speed - - 0.85 0.8 0.73 0.77 0.71 AB B = 0.6 0.4 0.2 111 Baseline Comparison Digital Conventional Billboard Billboard Event Type Figure 25. Standard Deviation of Speed by Event, in miles per hour. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.) 61 1.0 ■ Standard Deviation of Speed 0.6 1 0.65 0..-71 0.6 x CL f 0.4 0.2 0.0 Baseline Corryarison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 26. Standard Deviation of Speed by Event for Events Occurring on Interstates, in miles per hour. (None of the observed differences was significant.) 62 Lane keeping. The standard deviation of lane position was calculated for each event. Standard deviation was used instead of average lane position, because average lane position can be to the right or left, and thus an average would tend to wash out true differences, while standard deviation takes overall deviation into account, regardless of left or right. While there appeared to be differences in lane keeping for the different event types as shown in Figure 27, these differences did not quite reach significance (173,91 = 2.46, p = 0.0673). Nevertheless, the trend is that digital billboards and conventional billboards seem to be related to poorer lane keeping, and it is likely that a larger sample would have shown significance for this measure. 25 . Cf-... -M ^f 1 onn Baseline Comparison Digital Conventional Billboard Billboard Event Type Figure 27. Standard Deviation of Lane Position by Event, in inches. (None of the observed differences was significant.) Other findings Road Type. There were significant differences in the two overall eyeglance measures, both of which indicated a more active glance pattern on surface streets. The eyes -on -road percentage was higher for interstate events than for surface street events (71 % for interstate vs. 64% for surface streets; F I, 32 = 30.29,p<0.0001). There were also more total glances during an event on surface streets as opposed to on the interstates (6.3 glances for interstate vs. 7.2 glances for surface streets; 171,32 = 10.51, p < 0.0028). There were no significant differences for the eyeglance measures associated with the left or right side of the road. These findings are consistent with the findings of the Charlotte study, in that eyeglance patterns tend to be more active while driving on surface streets due to driver monitoring of driveways, intersections, and on -coming traffic. Familiarity. Drivers spent significantly more time with their eyes on the road while driving on unfamiliar roads (73% for familiar roads and 75% for unfamiliar roads; Fl, 22 = 4.81, p = 0.0392). However, this small significant difference likely has no practical implications, especially given that the overall glance frequency was not significant (FI, 22 = 1.38,p = 0.2530). 63 There were no significant differences for speed maintenance or lane keeping depending on familiarity with the route segment. These results are likely confounded by the fact that most of the road segments that drivers classified as familiar were the interstate portions of the route, while the unfamiliar roads tended to be the surface street sections. Age. There were two age findings in the eyeglance measures. Older drivers had higher eyes -on - road percentage than did younger drivers (73% for older and 67% for younger; F1, 32 = 4.46, p = 0.0426). Younger drivers also had more frequent right forward glances for events to the right than did older drivers (younger = 1.55 right forward glances per event; older = 1.34 right forward glances per event; F1,32 = 4.42,p = 0.0436). Younger drivers thus seemed to have a slightly more active glance pattern than older drivers, but this did not show up in very many of the eyeglance measures examined. There were no age differences for speed keeping or lane maintenance. Gender. There were no significant findings for gender for eyeglance, speed maintenance, or lane keeping measures. Driving Performance Results — Nighttime Event Type Eveglance results. As mentioned previously, there were about one-third fewer data points for the nighttime portion of the study, which was considered an exploratory study. Thus, the results in this section are presented descriptively, without statistical analysis. Where the differences shown are strong, it is likely that a larger study would show statistical significance, while weak differences may or may not hold up with a larger study. Four eyeglance measures were examined for the nighttime data: eyes -on -road percent, overall glance frequency, mean glance duration in the direction of an event, and mean number of glances in the direction of an event. Eyes -on -road percent is presented in Figure 28, which shows that digital billboards and comparison events tended to have less eyes -on -road time at nighttime than either baseline events or conventional billboards. The overall glance frequency was also higher in the presence of digital billboards and comparison events at nighttime, as shown in Figure 29. These two findings taken together show a more active glance pattern at nighttime in the presence of these two event types, which mirrors some of the daytime findings. MI 100% 80% 60% d U l a 40% 20% 0% Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 28. Eyes -on -Road Percent by Event Type for the Nighttime Exploratory Study. N � 5.00 C A 4.00 0 `w 3.00 a 3 2.00 z 1.00 - Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 29. Overall Glance Frequency by Event Type for the Nighttime Exploratory Study. The mean glance duration for glances in the direction of an event also showed higher values for digital billboards and comparison events; however, in this case, the comparison sites appeared to have longer glance times than did the digital billboards (Figure 30). The mean number of glances in the direction of an event again showed digital billboards and comparison events as having higher values than either baseline events or conventional billboards, as shown in Figure 31. Taken together, these four findings indicate that digital billboards and comparison events 65 may result in more active glance patterns overall, as well as more frequent and longer glances towards the digital billboards and comparison events. 1.0 0.8 0.6 C 0 ai 0.4 Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 30. Mean Glance Time for Glances in the Direction of an Event for the Nighttime Exploratory Study. 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.6 � t5 C7 O 1.2 `m a E 0.8 z 2 0.4 0.0 Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 31. Mean Number of Glances in the Direction of an Event for the Nighttime Exploratory Study. GTI Speed maintenance. Figure 32 shows that the standard deviation of speed appeared to be higher in the presence of both conventional and digital billboards than for baseline and comparison events. If this effect is related to the event type, it may be due to the attempt to read the copy of these signs at night while driving. If this is true, the higher value shown for conventional billboards may indicate that these signs are more difficult to read at night than are the digital billboards. 0,8 ■ Standard De\iation of Speed 0.64 0.69- 0.6 0.58 0.59 — x 0.4 0.2 W Baseline Comparison Digital Conventional Billboard Billboard Event Type Figure 32. Speed Maintenance as Measured by the Standard Deviation of Speed by Event for the Nighttime Exploratory Study. Lane ke Ring. Lane keeping also showed a trend towards greater lane deviations in the presence of both digital billboards and conventional billboards as shown in Figure 33. As was true for speed maintenance, conventional billboards showed higher values than did digital billboards. Again, this may be an indication of the difficulty of reading these signs at night. 67 25 ■ Standard DeNation of Lane Position 20.43 21.29 E20 o N L � 0 g o 15 .— J V 5 Baseline Comparison LED Billboard Static Billboard Event Type Figure 33. Lane Keeping as Measured by the Standard Deviation of Lane Position by Event for the Nighttime Exploratory Study. Nighttime Luminance Measures The luminance was measured with a Radiant Imaging Charge -Coupled Device (CCD) photometer with a 300 mm lens. The CCD photometer provided a method of capturing the luminance of an entire scene at one time. Luminance represents the amount of light that is projected off a surface in a given direction. For this investigation, the direction of interest was towards the driver. Luminance is measured in candelas per meter squared. The photometer was located in the experimental vehicle as close to the driver's position as possible (Figures 34 and 35). The experimental vehicle was then driven to the sign location and stopped on the side of the road. Images of the sign were then acquired. For multiple face signs such as the digital and the tri -visions signs, each of the presented messages was imaged. Using the software provided with the system, the average luminance of the sign and each message was measured. The photometer was connected to a laptop computer in the back seat that stored the data as the images were acquired. All measurements were taken at night. Figure 36 shows the average luminance measures for each of the four event types measured in candelas per meter squared. Note that the digital billboards had noticeably higher luminance values than any of the other event types, even though their luminance was automatically reduced at night. This probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital billboards. The overall ranking of luminance by event (digital billboards were the highest, followed in order by comparison events, conventional billboards, and baseline events) closely mirrors the rankings of many of the performance measures for both daytime and nighttime, including eyeglance, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. Altogether, there were 74 measurements (17 for comparison events, 36 for digital billboards, 6 for conventional billboards, and 15 for baseline events). More readings were taken for the digital billboards because each message was measured individually. �� r Figure 34. Bracket for Radiant Imaging CCD Photometer. Figure 35. Radiant Imaging CCD Photometer in Position for Measurements, with Experimenter Making Final Adjustments. 69 751 kul E v 30 a G c 20 E J 10 ■Average Luminance Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional Billboard Event Type Figure 36. Average Luminance of the Four Event Types, in Candelas per Meter Squared. will COMPARISONS TO THE CHARLOTTE STUDY There were several similarities and several differences between this study and the study conducted in Charlotte, NC. The original intent was to make the studies as similar as possible, and this was achieved to the degree possible, as demonstrated by the following items: • Both were conducted in mid-sized cities (Charlotte population: 540,828; Cleveland population: 478,403; both figures taken from US Census 2000). • Both were conducted in areas with similar terrain (fairly flat, with a few rolling hills; Charlotte elevation: 650 feet; Cleveland elevation: 581 feet). • Both studies included conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline events. • Both studies showed similar results when conventional billboards were compared to baseline and comparison sites (very few differences in eyeglance measures, speed maintenance, or lane keeping for conventional billboards as compared to baseline events and comparison events). • Both studies used 36 participants who performed the experiment in the daytime, equally divided into four age by gender cells (nine older males, nine older females, nine younger males, and nine younger females). • Both included participants who lived and worked in the area and were familiar with at least some parts of the route. • Both studies were conducted during similar times of day (between rush hours, from about 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.). • Both studies included surface streets and interstates. • Both studies used the same make and model of vehicle, and similar instrumentation. • Both studies used the same basic protocols and questionnaires. • The data were reduced and analyzed in a similar fashion using the same software tools. • Both studies were sponsored by a foundation with strong ties to the outdoor advertising industry. Thus, in each study every effort was made to remove sources of potential bias. These efforts included: o Final selection of route and events were made by VTTI project staff; o Data collection and reduction was as automated as possible (speed and lane keeping data were totally automated, and involved no human intervention or interpretation); and o In the case of eyeglance data reduction, where human intervention and interpretation were necessary, data reductionists knew very little about the project, its focus, or its sponsor. They evaluated each event according to a number code, with no knowledge about whether the number represented a digital billboard, conventional billboard, comparison event, or baseline event. o In addition, the participants themselves did not know the true purpose of the study. 71 Differences between the two studies included the following items; these were motivated primarily by the difference in focus between the two studies: • The focus of the Charlotte study was driver performance in relation to conventional billboards, while the focus of the Cleveland study was driver performance in relation to digital billboards. • The comparison events in each study were chosen to be comparable to the events of interest. In the Charlotte study, the comparison events were chosen prior to data collection and were considered by the experimenters to be visually similar to conventional billboards. In the Cleveland study, the comparison events were again chosen prior to data collection and were considered by the experimenters to be visually similar to digital billboards. • The Cleveland route was longer (50 miles, versus 35 miles for the Charlotte study; this was due to the need to include as many digital billboards as possible). • The Cleveland subject pool was not as representative of the demographics of Cleveland as was the Charlotte subject pool (in terms of race and ethnicity). For example, Cleveland is approximately 41% Caucasian, while 97% of the participants were Caucasian. Charlotte is 58% Caucasian and 61% of the participants in that study were Caucasian. • The Charlotte study examined the 7 seconds preceding each event, while the Cleveland study used 8 seconds (to increase the chances of capturing data for a message change for the digital billboards). • The Cleveland study included digital billboards, which were not present in the Charlotte study. • The Cleveland study included an exploratory nighttime study using 12 of the daytime participants. • Luminance measures were obtained for the Cleveland study as part of the nighttime exploratory study. • The Charlotte study included some US highway type roads that were not available in the Cleveland study. • Because the digital billboards were all located on the interstate segments of the route, the road type and event type were confounded, unlike in the Charlotte study. To get around this, some of the analyses examined only events occurring on interstates. • Because most of the drivers were more familiar with the interstate segments than with the surface streets, road type and familiarity were also confounded to a greater degree than in the Charlotte study. However, this interaction was not a primary focus of the current study. • The Cleveland study was conducted in late fall and early winter, while the Charlotte study was conducted in late spring. 72 CONCLUSIONS As with all studies, especially those conducted in real-world environments, the research design demonstrated both limitations and strengths. The study was designed to be as similar as possible to the study previously conducted in Charlotte, NC, with the major exception of the focus of the study (conventional billboards for Charlotte and digital billboards for Cleveland). The studies were similar in many important aspects with the exception of the location of the digital billboards. In the Charlotte study, billboards were present on all road types, while in Cleveland, all of the digital billboards were located along interstate highways. Thus, no conclusions can be made regarding the potential impact of digital billboards located on surface streets on driver behavior or performance. Despite this one flaw, necessitated by the real-world constraints of the digital billboard locations, the overall findings of this study were consistent and compelling. The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital billboards and by longer glances in the direction of the billboards). The comparison events, 25% of which included signs with digital components, showed very similar results to the digital billboards. Thus, there appears to be some aspect of the digital billboards and on -premises signs that holds the driver's attention once the driver has glanced in that direction. This is most likely the result of the intrinsic lighting of these signs, which is noticeable even during the daytime. Drivers may also have maintained longer glances towards the digital billboards in the hopes of catching the next message (knowing that the message changed periodically), although an analysis of longer glances did not bear this out. Although exploratory in nature, the nighttime results were very similar to the daytime results, with degraded eyeglance performance for digital billboards and comparison events. The digital billboards were also found to have much higher luminance at nighttime than any of the other eventtypes. These particular LED billboards were considered safety -neutral in their design and operation from a human factors perspective: they changed only once every eight seconds, they changed instantaneously with no special effects or video, they looked very much like conventional billboards, and their luminance was attenuated at night. It is thus quite likely that digital signs with video, movement, higher luminance, shorter on -message duration, longer transition times, and special effects would also be related to differences in driver behavior and performance. Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on -premises signs located at businesses. Conventional billboards were shown both in the current study and in the Charlotte study to be very similar to baseline and comparison events in terms of driver behavior and performance; thus, the design of digital billboards should be kept as similar as possible to conventional billboards. 73 REFERENCES Alm, H. & Nilsson, L. (1994). Changes in driver behaviour as a function of handsfree mobile phones—a simulator study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26 (4), 441-451. Andreassen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No. 1: Traffic accidents and advertising signs. Australian Road Research Board, 15(2), 103-105. Beijer, D. D., Smiley, A., & Eizenman, M. (2004). Observed driver glance behavior at roadside advertising. Transportation Research Record, No. 1899, 96-103. Brown, I. D., Tickner, A. H., & Simmonds, D. C. V. (1969). Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53 (5), 419-424. Crandall, D., Van Loon, E., & Underwood, G. (2006). Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38 (4), 671-677. Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S. G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., Jermeland, J., and Knipling, R.R. (2006). The 100 -Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase 11— Results of the 100 -Car Field Experiment. (Report No. DOT HS 810 593). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Farber, E., Blanco, M., Foley, J., Curry, R., Greenberg, J. A., & Seralin, C. P. (2000). Surrogate measures of visual demand while driving. Dearborn, MI: Ford Motor Company -Scientific Research Laboratory. Farbry, J., Wochinger, K., Shafer, T., Owens, N, and Nedzesky, A. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction (Final Report). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Garvey, P. M., Thompson -Kuhn, B. and Pietrucha, M. T. (1995). Sign visibility literature review. United States Sign Council (USSC) Research Project, Final Report. Gellatly, A. W., & Kleiss, J. A. (2000). Visual attention demand evaluation of conventional and multifunction in -vehicle information systems. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 3, 282-285. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. GES. (2002). National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) Analytical User's Manual 1988-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Glaze, A. L., and Ellis, J. M. (2003). Pilot study of distracted drivers. Transportation Safety Training Center for Public Policy. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University. Hanowski R.I., Wierwille W. W., and Dingus T. A. (2003). An on -road study to investigate fatigue in local/short haul trucking. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(2), 153-160. Horrey, W. J., and Wickens, C. D. (2007). In -vehicle glance duration: Distributions, tails and a model of crash risk. Proceedings of the 2007 Transportation Research Board Meeting. Washington, DC: TRB. 74 Lee, S. E., Olsen, E. C. B., and DeHart, M. C. (2004). Driving performance in the Presence and absence of billboards. Report commissioned by the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education. Kurokawa, K., & Wierwille, W. W. (1990). Validation of a driving simulation facility for instrument panel task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, 1299-1303. McMonagle, J. C. (1951). Accident analysis — Telegraph Road 1947-1948. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30,29-41. Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1970). Mapping eye -movement patterns to the visual scene in driving: An exploratory study. Human Factors, 12(1), 81-87. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human Factors, 14(4), 325-335. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. Mourant, R. R., Rockwell, T. H., & Rackoff, N. J. (1969). Drivers' eye movements and visual workload. Highway Research Record, 292, 1-10. Washington, D. C.: National Research Council. Nagata, M., & Kuriyama, H. (1985). Drivers'visual behavior with door and fender mirror systems (SAE Paper No. 850330). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Parkes, A. M, Ward, N. J., & Vaughan, G. (2001). A human factors evaluation of a novel display and control concept for in -vehicle audio systems: a case study. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 25 (4), p. 339-352. Rockwell, T. H. (1988). Spare Visual Capacity in Driving -Revisited (New Empirical Results for an Old Idea). In Proceeding of Vision in Vehicles II (pp. 317-324). A G Gale et al. (Editors). Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North -Holland). Rusch, W.A. (1951). Highway accident rates as related to roadside business and advertising. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 46-50. Rykken, K. B. (1951). Minnesota roadside survey: progress report on accident, access point and advertising sign study in Minnesota. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 42-43. Salvucci, D. D. (2002).Modeling driver distraction from cognitive tasks. In Proceedings of the 241h Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 792-797). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Accessed 9 October 2003 from http://hmil.cs.drexel.edu/papers/CSCO2.pdf. Serafin, C., Wen, C., Paelke, P., & Green, P. (1993). Car phone usability: A human factors laboratory test. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, (pp. 220-224). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Tantala, M. W. & Tantala, P. J. (2005). An examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. In Proceedings of the 2005 Transportation Research Board Meeting. Washington, DC: TRB. Taoka, G., T. (1990). Duration of drivers' glances at mirrors and displays. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, October, 60(10), 35-39. 75 Tessmer, J. M. (2002). Fatal Accident Reporting System Analytic Reference Guide, 1975-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Tijerina, L., Kiger, S. M., Rockwell, T. H., & Tornow, C. (1995). Workload assessment of in - cab text message system and cellular phone use by heavy vehicle drivers on the road. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39'h Annual Meeting (pp. 1117- 1121). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Tijerina, L., Palmer, E. B., & Goodman, M. J. (1999). Individual differences and in -vehicle distraction while driving: a test track study and psychometric evaluation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting. pp. 982-986. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Wachtel, J. and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and environmental design considerations in the use of commercial electronic variable -message signage (Final Report). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Waugh, J. D., Glumm, M. M., Kilduff, P. W., Tauson, R. A., Smyth, C. C., & Pillalamarri, R. S. (2000). Cognitive workload while driving and talking on a cellular phone or to a passenger. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. 6, 276-279. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Wierwille, W. W. (1993). Visual and manual demands of in -car controls and displays. In B. Peacock and W. Karwowski (Eds.), Automotive Ergonomics (pp. 299-320). Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis. Wierwille, W. W., Antin, J. F., Dingus, T. A., & Hulse, M. C. (1988). Visual attentional demand of an in -car navigation display system. In A. G. Gale, M. H. Freeman, C. M. Haslegrave, P. Smith, & S. P. Taylor (Eds.), Vision in Vehicles H (pp. 307-316). Amsterdam: North Holland Press. Zwahlen, H. T., Adams, C.C., & DeBald, D. P. (1988). Safety Aspects of CRT touch panel controls in automobiles. In A.G. Gale, Freeman, M. H., Haslegrave, C. M. Smith, P., & Taylor, S. P. (eds.). Vision in Vehicles H (335-344). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 76 APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Participant Telephone Screening Form FOARE Cleveland Participant Screening Script Note to Researcher: Initial contact between participants and researchers may take place over the phone. If this is the case, read the following Introductory Statement, followed by the questionnaire. Regardless of how contact is made, this questionnaire must be administered verbally before a decision is made regarding suitability for this study. Introductory Statement: After prospective participant calls or you call him/her, use the following script as a guideline in the screening interview. Hello. My name is Melinda McElheny and I'm a researcher with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute in Blacksburg, Virginia. The project involves participation in a driving study to help researchers understand how people drive. This study involves coming to a meeting room at the Residence Inn by Marriott in Independence, OH, just south of Cleveland on I-77 one time for approximately 2 hours. During this session you would help us by driving one of our vehicles along a pre -selected route for about 50 miles. The vehicle will be equipped with data collection equipment. Does this sound interesting to you? Next, I would like to ask you several questions to see if you are eligible to participate. Questions 1. Do you have a valid driver's license? Yes No 2. How often do you drive each week? Every day At least 2 times a week Less than 2 times a week 3. How old are you? (stop if not 18-35 years old or 50-75 years old.) 4. What type of vehicle do you usually drive?. 5. Have you previously participated in any experiments at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute? If so, can you briefly describe the study? Yes No 77 6. How long have you held your drivers' license? 7. Are you able to drive an automatic transmission without assistive devices or special equipment? Yes No 8. Do you have a history of any of the following? If yes, please explain. Stroke Brain tumor Head injury Epileptic seizures Respiratory disorders Motion sickness Inner ear problems Dizziness, vertigo, or other balance problems Diabetes Migraine, tension headaches 9. (Females only, of course) Are you currently pregnant? No Yes_ No_ Yes_ No_ Yes_ No Yes_ No_ Yes_ NO Yes_ No_ Yes_ No Yes_ No_ Yes_ No Yes Yes No (If "yes" then read the following statement to the participant: "It is not recommended that pregnant women participate in this study. However, female participants who are pregnant and wish to participate must first consult with their personal physician for advice and guidance regarding participation in a study where risks, although minimal, include the possibility of collision and airbag deployment. ') 10. Are you currently taking any medications on a regular basis? If yes, please list them. Yes No 11. Do you have normal or corrected to normal hearing and vision? If no, please explain. Yes No 12. Have you ever had radial keratotomy, LASIK, or other eye surgeries? If yes, please specify. Yes No 78 I would like to take your name, phone number or phone numbers, and/or email where you can be reached and hours/days when it's best to reach you. Name Male/Female Phone Numbers Age: Best Time to Call Email When contacting participants for scheduling purposes, the following statement must be included in the conversation. "We ask that all participants refrain from drinking alcohol and taking any substances that will impair their ability to drive prior to participating in our study." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for Participation: 1. Must hold a valid driver's license. 2. Must be 18-35 or 50-75 years of age. 3. Must drive at least 2 times a week. 4. Must have normal (or corrected to normal) hearing and vision. 5. Must be able to drive an automatic transmission without special equipment 6. Cannot have lingering effects of brain damage from stroke, tumor, head injury, recent concussion, or infection. Cannot have had epileptic seizures within 12 months, respiratory disorders, motion sickness, inner ear problems, dizziness, vertigo, balance problems, diabetes for which insulin is required, chronic migraine or tension headaches. 7. Cannot currently be taking any substances that may interfere with driving ability (cause drowsiness or impair motor abilities). 8. No history of radial keratotomy, LASIK eye surgery, or any other ophthalmic surgery. 9. Must be willing to drive without sunglasses or tinted lenses. 10. Must live or work in the Cleveland area. A total of 2 hours of time will be needed. What days and times would you be able to participate? Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 11:45 11:45 11:45 11:45 11:45 11:45 11:45 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 Thank you for your time. I will contact you to schedule a session if you are selected as a participant. 79 Participant # Appendix B: Informed Consent Form VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY Informed Consent for Participants of Investigative Projects Title of Proiect: Influence of driver characteristics on driving performance Investigators: Dr. Suzanne E. Lee, Research Scientist, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Dr. Ronald B. Gibbons, Research Scientist, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Melinda J. McElheny, Senior Research Specialist, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. 1. The Purpose of this Research Project This study will collect driver performance data to help understand the way people drive in a natural environment (with no experimenter present). The goal of this study is improve the understanding of how people drive. II. Procedures For this study you will be asked to drive on a loop -route on freeways and highways in Cleveland, Ohio. We want you to drive as you normally would on any roadway, following the typical laws and regulations of the road. The session is expected to last about two hours, including this orientation. You will then be paid for your participation. This vehicle contains sensors and data processing equipment that will capture aspects of your driving behavior. Small video cameras are also mounted in the vehicle. One of these cameras will be directed toward your face while you are driving. The equipment has been installed in such a way that you will hardly be able to notice its presence. It will not interfere with your driving, and there is nothing special that you will need to do in regard to the equipment. This experiment will consist of five experimental stages: 1. Introductory stage This stage consists of preliminaries. You will be asked to read the informed consent form. Once you have signed this form, we will also ask to see your driver's license, and an eye exam will be administered. Finally, we will have you complete a medical questionnaire. Once you have completed this stage we will go on to stage 2. 2. Familiarization with the test vehicle While the instrumented vehicle is parked you will be shown how to operate the vehicle (for example, lights, mirror adjustments, windshield wipers, etc.) as this may be different from your [0, Participant # personal vehicle. You will then be asked to set each control to the best level for your comfort and driving performance. You will then take a short drive with the experimenter riding along in the passenger's seat to become familiar with the vehicle. This stage should take approximately 15 minutes. 3. Preparation for loop route The experimenter will then review the loop -route with you. You will be given a map and written directions that the experimenter will review with you. 4. Driving the loop route You will then drive the instrumented vehicle for approximately 1.5 hours over the pre -planned loop route of approximately 50 miles. You are expected to follow the posted speed limit and to wear your seatbelt. Also, please stay in the right-hand lane to the extent possible during the drive. The loop route is to be completed in one session if possible. 5. Debriefing and Payment After completing the experiment, you will return here for a short debriefing session. You will then be paid for your participation. It is expected that the complete session will last approximately 2 hours, including orientation, loop -route, and debriefing. III. Risks The experiment is believed to be minimal risk. There are risks or discomforts to which you are exposed in volunteering for this research. The risks in this study are the same as the risks normally associated with driving on public roadways. The risks involved include the following: 1) The risks normally associated with driving on commonly encountered roadway segments at freeway speeds, and if you are participating in the nighttime driving study, the risks include those normally associated with driving on similar roadway segments at night. 2) Possible fatigue due to the length of the experiment. However, the route will be selected to minimize the amount of driving required. You will be instructed to exit the roadway to take a break if you feel the need to do so at any time during the experimental session. 3) Cameras will videotape you as you drive the vehicle; therefore, we will ask you not to wear sunglasses. However, you should feel free to put on your sunglasses if this request at any time impairs your ability to drive the vehicle safely. The following precautions will be taken to ensure minimal risk to you: 1) The experimenter will monitor you during the orientation drive and help you become familiar with the experimental vehicle. However, as long as the you are driving the research vehicle, it remains your responsibility to drive in a safe, legal manner. 2) You will be required to wear the lap and shoulder belt restraint system while in the car. The vehicle is also equipped with a driver's side airbag supplemental restraint system. 3) If an accident does occur, you will be instructed to call appropriate emergency services via a cell phone in the glove compartment, and then to call the experimenter. If a visit to a medical facility is required, you would be required to undergo examination by medical personnel. 81 Participant # 4) A cell phone (stored in the glove compartment) will be made available for you to call the experimenter for any reason. You will be instructed to call only while the vehicle is in a safe location, and while the vehicle is not in motion. 5) All data collection equipment will be mounted such that, to the greatest extent possible, it does not pose a hazard to you in any foreseeable case. 6) None of the data collection equipment or the display technology interferes with any part of your normal field of view present in the automobile. 1V. Benefits of this Research Project The information collected from this project will provide new information on how people tend to drive in a natural setting. This information will be used to improve roadway and vehicle design, so that roadside and in -vehicle devices can be better designed to fit in with what people expect. While there are no direct benefits of participating in this study, you may find the experiment interesting. No guarantee of benefits has been made to encourage you to participate. However, to avoid biasing other potential participants, you are requested not to discuss this study with anyone for at least 8 months after participation. V. Extent of Anonymity and Confidentiality The results obtained from this study will be kept completely anonymous. Your name will not appear on data derived from your session. Only a number will differentiate your data from others who take part in the study. This number, and not your name, will also be used in subsequent data analyses and reports. As indicated, video will be recorded while you are driving. The video includes an image of your face, so that we can determine where you are normally looking. The video will be treated with confidentiality and kept secure. It will be shared only with other qualified researchers, and not published except as noted in the following paragraph. If at a later time we wish to use the video information for other than research purposes, say, for public education, or if we wish to publish (for research or for other purposes) your likeness or other information from the study that identifies you either directly or indirectly, we will only do so after we have contacted you again and obtained your explicit permission. VI. Compensation You will be paid $20 per hour for the time you actually spend in the experiment. It is estimated that the entire session, including orientation, driving, and debriefing will be 2 hours. Payment will be made in cash immediately after you have finished your participation. VH. Freedom to Withdraw You are free to withdraw at any time without penalty. If you choose to withdraw from this study you will be compensated for your time up until that point. VIII. Medical Treatment and Insurance If you should become injured in an accident, the medical treatment available to you would be that provided to any driver or passenger by emergency medical services in the vicinity where the accident occurs. The vehicle you will be driving is insured for automobile liability and I.N Participant # collision/comprehensive through Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is medical coverage for you under this policy. The total policy amount per occurrence is $2,000,000. This coverage would apply in case of an accident, except as noted below. Under certain circumstances, you may be deemed to be driving in the course of your employment, and your employer's worker's compensation provisions may apply in lieu of the Virginia Tech and Commonwealth of Virginia insurance provisions, in case of an accident. The particular circumstances under which worker's compensation would apply are specified in Virginia law. If worker's compensation provisions do not apply in a particular situation, the Virginia Tech and Commonwealth of Virginia insurance provisions will provide coverage. Briefly, worker's compensation would apply if your driving for this research can be considered as part of the duties you perform in your regular job. If it is not considered as part of your regular job, then the insurance policy would apply. IX. Approval of Research You should know that this research project has been approved, as required by the Institutional Review Board for Research Involving Human Participants at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institution. X. Participant's Responsibilities I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I have the following responsibilities: 1) I should not participate in this study if I do not have a valid driver's license or if I am not in good health. 2) I should notify the experimenter if at any time I do not want to continue my participation. 3) I should operate the instrumented vehicle in a safe and responsible manner. 4) I should answer all questions truthfully. M. Participant's Permission Check one of the following: ❑ I have not had an eye injury/eye surgery (including, but not limited to, LASIK, Radial Keratotomy, and cataract surgery.) ❑ I have had an eye injury/eye surgery and I've have been informed of the possible risks to participants who have had eye surgery. I choose to accept this possible risk to participate in this study. 83 Participant #_ I have read and understand the Informed Consent and conditions of this project. I have had all my questions answered. I hereby acknowledge the above and give my voluntary consent for participation in this project. If I participate, I may withdraw at any time without penalty. I agree to abide by the rules of this project. Signature Date Should I have any questions about this research project or its conduct, I may contact: Dr. Suzanne E. Lee, Principal Investigator (540) 231-1511 Melinda J. McElheny, Senior Research Specialist (540) 231-1557 David Moore, Chair of the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (540) 231-4991 Participants must be given a complete copy (or duplicate original) of the signed Informed Consent RE Participant # Appendix C: Health Screening Questionnaire Health Screening Questionnaire 1. Are you in good general health? Yes No If no, list any health-related conditions you are experiencing or have experienced in the recent past. 2. Have you, in the last 24 hours, experienced any of the following conditions? Inadequate sleep Yes No Hangover Yes No Headache Yes No Cold symptoms Yes No Depression Yes No Allergies Yes No Emotional upset Yes No 3. Do you have a history of any of the following? Visual Impairment Yes No (If yes, please describe.) Seizures or other lapses of consciousness Yes No (If yes, please describe.) Any disorders similar to the above or that would impair your driving ability Yes No (If yes, please describe.) 85 Participant # 4. List any prescription or non-prescription drugs you are currently taking or have taken in the last 24 hours. 5. List the approximate amount of alcohol (beer, wine, fortified wine, or liquor) you have consumed in the last 24 hours. 6. Are you taking any drugs of any kind other than those listed in 4 or 5 above? Signature 86 Yes No Date Participant #_ Appendix D: Post Drive -Questionnaire Thank you for participating in this driving study. We appreciate your responses to the following items. All information will remain confidential. 1. Please check either "Familiar" (driven at least once a week) or "Not Familiar" (driven less than one time a week) for the following roadway sections: I-480between I-77 and 150th W. 130'h —Bellaire—W.117a' I-90 between 9th and 185th Carnegie St. I-77 between I-90 and Rockside Familiar Not Familiar Familiar Not Familiar Familiar Not Familiar Familiar Not Familiar Familiar Not Familiar 2. For the following systems, please check what you liked or disliked: Seating like Air conditioning like Engine power like Visibility like Steering like neutral dislike neutral dislike neutral dislike neutral dislike neutral dislike Please check the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive: Surrounding traffic Other drivers Construction areas Road/street signs Emergency vehicles Buildings Landmarks Walls Landscaping/scenery Gas Stations Restaurants Motels/Hotels Billboards Towers Highway/Exit Signs Smoke Stacks Apartments/housing Other VIA 4. Did you experience any problems while following the written directions? _Yes No If yes, please describe: 5. What was most memorable about the drive? For example, where there any objects that stood out? 6. What other activities do you typically engage in while driving? 7. Does anything about other drivers bother you? If so, please briefly describe: 8. Please provide any other input about this study: 9. In what city do you live? 10. In what city do you work? 11. What level of education have you completed? Elementary/Secondary Junior High School High School degree 2 -yr Associate degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctoral/Professional degree 12. Please indicate your marital status: single married widowed divorced separated 13. Which of the following groups best represent your ethnicity? African American Hispanic (Latino) Asian Native American (American Indian) European (Caucasian, White) Multi -racial 14. Which of the following best represents your annual household income? $0-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 > $100,000 15. What was the purpose of this study? 89 Participant # when you get home. N F'f6y FOXCleveland.com Arbitron Custom Research Report Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Introduction Welcome to Arbitron's evaluation of digital highway billboards. This survey is designed to measure travelers' awareness and attitudes towards digital billboards on major highways and to gauge their level of engagement with billboard advertising messages. Some significant findings of the research include: s More than half of all Cleveland travelers notice digital billboards and the more a person commutes, the more likely they are to be aware of the displays. s Public reaction to digital signage is positive. The billboard's ability to display timely news, traffic, weather advisories and AMBER Alert notices makes the vast majority of commuters (over 80%) feel the digital signs provide an important community service. Digital billboards are an effective advertising platform. Over eight out of 10 travelers could successfully recall at least one of the ads running during the survey period and the majority of commuters agree digital billboards are a "cool way to advertise." Description of Methodology This case study focuses on seven digital billboards operating in Cleveland, OH. The digital displays are located on four interstate highways in the Cleveland, OH, area: I-77, 1-90,1-271 and I-480. Arbitron Inc. conducted random digit dial (RDD) interviews between November 27 and December 3, 2007, with 402 persons 18 years of age and older in the Cleveland, OH, Arbitron -defined Metro. To qualify for the survey, respondents had to have traveled in a vehicle (car, truck, bus or taxi) on 1-77,1- 90, I-271 or I-480 in the 30 days preceding the survey period. The study was designed and conducted by Arbitron Inc. on behalf of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. Data were weighed to reflect census figures and factored in the likelihood of each demographic group qualifying for the survey based on the above mentioned "roads traveled" screening criteria. Digital Billboard Locations 1. 1-271: west side, 125 feet south of Solon Road (facing north) 2. 1480: south side, 2 miles east of 1-71 (facing east) 3. I-90 (Innerbelt Freeway): south side, 100 feet east of West 3rd Street (facing south) 4. 1-77: west side, 0.3 miles south of Pershing Avenue (facing north) 5. I-90: south side, 70 feet east of West 55th Street (facing west) 6. 1-90: south side, 0.5 miles west of Eddy Road (facing east) 7. 1480: north side, 0.5 miles east of Broadway (facing east) © 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Key Findings I. Digital Billboard Viewership and Engagement More Than Half of Cleveland Highway Travelers Noticed Digital Billboards in the Past Month "One specific type of billboard is called digital billboards. These digital roadside billboards repeatedly change advertising messages electronically every eight seconds." 100% 75% 50% 25% 0°h "Have you noticed any digital billboards in the Cleveland area in the past 30 days?" All Travelers Mega - Travelers 25-54 Milers* Do you recall ever seeing digital billboards on any of the following highways?" 43% 36% 22% 19% 1-480 1-90 1-271 1-77 Butte Persons 18 rears or older /icing in the Cleveland, OH Metro area who trmeled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1-480 in rhe past 30 dma. s Mega -milers are rhose heatv commwers it ho travel 200 miles or more per week: thev represent 30'a ojall Cho,,laod have/en. More than half of Cleveland highway travelers noticed digital billboards in the past month. Fifty-three percent of Cleveland Metro residents who traveled in a car, truck, bus or taxi on Interstate 77, 271, 480 or 90 in the past month noticed digital billboards on those roads. The core adult traveler demographic of 25- to 54 -year-olds showed an increased awareness of digital billboards, with six in 10 (601/o) noticing one in the past month. Awareness of digital billboards increased with frequency of travel. Seventy-three percent of the heaviest commuters, known as mega -milers, recalled seeing at least one of these electronic displays during the past month. O 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Nine Out of 10 Digital Billboard Viewers Notice the Advertising Some, Most or Each Time They Pass a Board "How often do you notice the advertising messages on digital billboards?" r3 Each Time Most of the 23% Time 31% Never 3% Almost Never 7% Sometimes 36% BasePersons l8 years or older living in the Clnelond. OH, Metro area who trmeled on 1-77,1-90,1.271 or /-080 in the past 30 day's. Nearly all travelers who notice digital billboards look at the advertising messages at least some of the time. Ninety percent of respondents who notice digital billboards said they also note the advertising messages on them either sometimes, most of the time or each time. Nearly one-quarter of viewers say they notice the advertising message each time they see a digital billboard. © 2008 Arbitron Inc. All A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 4 The Majority of Digital Billboard Viewers Find the Signs to Be Attractive and Helpful to the Community "Now using a 5 -point scale where a '1' means you 'strongly disagree' and '5' means you 'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between." Digital billboards... .help the community with 11% 8% 81% emergency information. ...are attractive. 25% 22% 53% - ...make my commute 38% 24% 38% interesting. 0% 100% Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral or Don't Know ® Agree or Strongly Agree Bae: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who t,"ded on 1-77,1-90,1-271 or 1-480 in the past.10 days. Viewers strongly find digital billboards helpful in providing information about community emergencies. More than four out of five travelers (81 %) who notice digital billboards think the signs help their community by providing important and timely emergency information, such as AMBER Alerts. More than half of viewers (53%) think the digital billboards are attractive, and 38% think the signs make their commute more interesting. 0 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Young Adult Breakout: 18 -to 34 -Year -Old Travelers Have an Especially Positive Attitude Towards Digital Billboards 5 "Now using a 5 -point scale where a '1' means you 'strongly disagree' and '5' means you 'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between." Digital billboards... ...help the community with emergency information. .are attractive. ...make my commute interesting. 0% 100% ® Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral or Don't Know Agree or Strongly Agree Base: Persons 18 to 34 years old living in the Cleveland. OH, ,Metro area who troveledan 1-77.1-90,1-_>71 or 1-480 in the post 30 days. Note: Totals subject to rounding. Young adults 18-34 have especially positive feelings about digital billboards. Eighty-six percent of young adults think digital billboards help their community with timely emergency information and six in 10 (60%) think digital billboards are attractive. Digital billboards make commuting more interesting for over half (51%) of young adults. O 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 11. Digital Billboard Advertising Acceptance and Recall Most Digital Billboard Viewers Have Positive Attitudes Toward the Advertising Messages "Now using a 5 -point scale where a '1' means you `strongly disagree' and '5' means you 'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You can also use a Z 3, or if you feel somewhere in between." Digital billboards... are a cool way to advertise. 19% 17% 64% ...have current and relevant information. 19% 27% 54% useful information. 23% 31% 46% ' ...provide ... are a good way to learn 27% 29% 44% about new products. 0% 100% Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral or Don't Know ■ Agree or Strongly Agree Bw Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland. OR Metroarea who traveled on 1-77.1-90.1-271 or 1-480 in the pas130 days. Nearly two out of three viewers think digital billboards are a "cool way to advertise." Sixty-four percent of those who notice the digital billboards think the signs are a "cool way to advertise." More than half (54%) of viewers think the signs display "current and relevant information," and 461/o think they "provide useful information." Forty-four percent of travelers feel digital billboards are a "good way to learn about new products." © 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 7 Young Adult Breakout: 18 -to 34 -Year -Old Travelers Have Especially Positive Attitudes Toward Advertising Messages on Digital Billboards "Now using a 5 -point scale where a '1' means you `strongly disagree' and `5' means you 'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between. " Digital billboards... ...are a cool way to advertise. 14% 9% 77% ...have current and relevant information. % 29% 69% ...provide useful information. '1-b 18% 67% ... are a good way to learn F _°� � about new products 19% 58% 0% 100% m Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral or Don't Know Agree or Strongly Agree Base: Persons 18 to 34 years old living in the Cleveland, OH, Metra area %ho traveled on 1-77,1-90,1-271 or I<80 in the pati 30 dans. NateTotals suhjmt to rounding. More than three-quarters of young adults think digital billboards are "a cool way to advertise." Seventy-seven percent of young adults 18-34 who notice the digital billboards feel the signs "are a cool way to advertise." Sixty-nine percent of young adults think the signs display "current and relevant information," and 67% think they "provide useful information." Fifty-eight percent of young adults feel digital billboards are a "good way to team about new products." © 2008 Arbitron Inc. =' A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study The Local Radio Stations, a Local TV Channel and an Auto Dealership Generated the Highest Brand -Aided Advertising Recall "Do you remember seeing messages for any of the following on digital billboards?" Local Radio Stations 1 50% Fox 8 TV I 41% Liberty Ford Auto Dealership 39% Petiti Garden Center 1 30% Fox Sports Network 1 27% Cleveland.com 1 24% The Musical "Wicked" at Playhouse Square 22% Kalahiri Waterpark 15%; Qdoba Mexican Restaurant 11% 8 0% 20% 40% 60% Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OK Metro area rvho traveled on /-77,1-90, 1-271 or 1480 in the pat130 days. Recall of specific brands of advertising on the digital billboards ranged from 50% to 11%. One out of two (50%) travelers who noticed digital billboards recalled seeing the specific ads for local radio stations that were running in the market during the survey period, and 41% remembered seeing the ad for the local Fox TV affiliate. The recall across all nine advertisers averaged 291/6. © 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 01 The Majority of Digital Billboard Viewers Recalled, on a Brand -Aided Basis, at Least One Advertisement "Do you remember seeing messages for any of the following on digital billboards?" 100% Recalled At Least Recalled At Least Recalled At Least Recalled Four Or One Ad Two Ads Three Ads More Ads Base: Persoor 18 years or older living in the Clev land, ON, Metro area who (raveled on 1-77.1-90.1-271 or 1-480 in the pat30 days. More than eight out of 10 viewers recalled at least one of the advertisements currently running on the digital billboards in Cleveland. Eighty-three percent of those who noticed the digital billboards recalled, on a brand -aided basis, at least one of the nine advertisements currently running, and 65% of viewers recalled at least two. Something to Talk About Nearly One in Five Viewers Discussed an Ad Seen on a Digital Billboard with Other People "Now I would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards. Have you ever seen something funny that you talked about with others that day?" Nineteen percent of travelers who recalled a specific ad on the digital billboards said they talked about the advertising message with their family, friends or coworkers that day. Buse: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland. ON, Metro area who traveled on b77, 1-9Q 1-271 or 1-480 in the prat 30 days and recalled at least one ad 9 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 10 More Than One -Third of Digital Billboard Viewers Learned About a TV Show or Radio Station from the Signs "Now 1 would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards. Have you ever noted a...?" 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Radio station to listen to TV program to watch Base: Persons 18years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area nho traveled on 1-77, 1-90. 1-_'71 or 1-480 in the p av 30 dms and noticed the digital billboards. Digital billboards can drive traffic to other media. Thirty-five percent of travelers who noticed digital billboards noted a radio station message they saw on a digital billboard, and 28% of viewers noted a television program to watch. © 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N A. Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 11 Digital Billboards Drive Traffic to Local Businesses "Now I would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards. Have you ever learned about a...?" 30% 20% 10% 0% Store you later visited Restaurant you later visited Bare: Persom 18}wars or alder living in the Cleveland, OK Metro area who lraveled on 1-77, I-90,1-271 orl480 in lhe/ws130 days and nmiced the digitd hil/hoards Nearly one in five viewers were motivated to visit a store after seeing an advertisement for the store on a digital billboard. Eighteen percent of travelers who noticed the digital billboards learned about a store they later visited, and 15% of viewers learned about a restaurant they later visited. Getting the Word Out on Special Events Nearly Two of Five Viewers Learned About an Event They Were Interested in Attending From a Digital Billboard "Now I would like to ask you about some things you learn from seeing digital billboards. Have you ever learned about an event you were interested in?" Thirty-nine percent of travelers who noticed the digital billboards learned about an event that they were interested in attending. Bare' Persons l8}wars or older living in the Clernland, O$ Metro area nho lrmrled on 1-77.1-90,1-271 or 1-480 in the pwi 30 days and noticed rhe digital billboardt. O 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T RO N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Digital Billboards Prompt Viewers to Learn More About a Brand Through Phone Numbers and Web Addresses 12 "Now 1 would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards. Have you ever noted a...?" 50% 40% 17% Phone number Base: Persons l8 ware or older living in the Cletviand. OK Merro area who /raveled on 1-77,1-90.1-271 or 1-080 in the pair 30 dins and noticed the digital billboards. One-quarter of viewers noted an advertiser's Web address displayed on a digital billboard. Twenty-five percent of travelers who noticed digital billboards noted the Web site address of an advertiser, and 17% noted an advertiser's phone number. O 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Appendix A .......................................... _- Travel Habits of Cleveland Metro Residents Cleveland highway travelers in the past week • 87% drove themselves. • 58% traveled in a car or truck as a passenger. • 17% carpooled to or from work either as a driver or as a passenger. • 10% took a bus. • Average total miles traveled: 200 (median 105). Cleveland work commuters • Commuters traveled an average of 16 miles one way. 13 • Almost half (45%) traveled for 10 to 30 minutes one way, and 36% traveled over a half hour each way. O 2008 Arbitron Inc. p�1;g� A R B I T R O N ZA Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study Appendix B 14 Demographic Profile of Cleveland Travelers Cleveland Cleveland Highway Travelers Who Noticed Residents' Travelers Digital Billboards Gender Men 48% 49%2 50%2 Women 52% 51% 50% Age 18-24 12% 13% 7% 25-34 16% 16% 18% 35-44 18% 19% 23% 45-54 20% 22% 24% 55-64 15% 14% 19% 65+ 19% 16% 9% Employment Status Employed full-time 47% 55% 65% Employed part-time 18% 13% 11% Retired 18% 19% 13% Homemaker 8% 5% 4% Unemployed 4% 5% 5% Student 3% 3% 1% Income $50K+ 49% 58% 54% $75K+ 28% 33% 32% Ethnicity White 86% 74% 76% African-American 12% 18% 15% Hispanic/Latino 3% 3% 3% !Data in this column are from Scarborough 12 -Month Survey (March 'OtrFebmary '07). 1How m read: Forty-nine percent (49.5) of the Cleveland residents who traveted on Cleveland highways in the past 30 days are male, and 501. ofthose travelers who noticed digital billboards are male. Note: Totals subject to rounding. All section do not add up to 100% because some respondents declined to answer certain demographic questions. © 2008 Arbitron Inc.�a A R B I T RON }. Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 15 Appendix C Demographic Profile of Cleveland Travelers by Miles Traveled in the Past Seven Days Age Medium Cleveland Light Travelers Travelers Mega -Milers Highway (Fewer than 75 Miles) (75-200 Miles) (200+ Miles) Travelers 33% of sample 34% of sample 30% of sample Gender 14% 18% 25% Men 49%1 43%1 47% 59% Women 51% 57% 53% 41% Age 18-24 13% 16% 11% 13% 25-34 16% 13% 17% 20% 35-44 19% 14% 18% 25% 45-54 22% 17% 26% 22% 55-64 14% 15% 15% 13% 65+ 16% 25% 14% 8% Employment Status Employed full-time 55% 34% 60% 77% Employed part-time 13% 17% 13% 8% Retired 19% 28% 18% 7% Homemaker 5% 8% 4% 3% Unemployed 5% 9% 3% 1 % Student 3% 3% 2% 4% Income $50K+ HHI 58% 46% 60% 70% $75K+ HHI 33% 20% 33% 48% Ethnicity White 74% 69% 81% 77% African-American 18% 23% 13% 16% Hispanic/Latino 3% 4% 2% 2% 'How lareadFornInme, percent l40%J ofthe Cleveland residents who traveled on Cleveland highums in the post 30 dgrs are male, and 43%, oflight Iruvelen are mole. Note: Totals subject to roaadmg. All sections do not add up to 100%because some respondents declined to ansrer certain demographic questions. O 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 16 About Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) The Outdoor Advertising Association of America is the lead trade association representing the outdoor advertising industry. Founded in 1891, OAAA is dedicated to uniting, promoting, protecting and advancing outdoor advertising interests in the U.S. With nearly 1,100 member companies, OAAA represents more than 90% of industry revenues. 'Information supplied by OAAA. About Arbitron Inc. Arbitron Inc. (NYSE: ARB) is an international media and marketing research firm serving the media—radio, television, cable, online radio and out-of-home—as well as advertisers and advertising agencies in the United States and Europe. Arbitron's core businesses are measuring network and local market radio audiences across the United States; surveying the retail, media and product patterns of local market consumers; and providing application software used for analyzing media audience and marketing information data. The Company has developed the Portable People Meterrm, a new technology for media and marketing research, which has been selected as one of Time magazine's "Best Inventions of 2007." Arbitron's marketing and business units are supported by a world-renowned research and technology organization located in Columbia, Maryland. Arbitron has approximately 1,900 employees; its executive offices are located in New York City. Through its Scarborough Research joint venture with The Nielsen Company, Arbitron provides additional media and marketing research services to the broadcast television, newspaper and online industries. Arbitron's Out -of -Home division provides training, consumer shopping data and audience profiles for out -of -home media. Currently, more than 100 out -of -home plants/place-based media and thousands of media industry chents—agencies, advertisers, stations, marketers and networks—utilize Arbitron and Scarborough consumer behavior information and software. Credible third -party measurement helps advertisers justify their investment in the medium. The Company's 50+ years of audience measurement experience help sellers focus on selling the value of their advertising rather than justifying the credibility of their measurement. Arbitron research studies about cinema advertising, the outdoor industry and traditional and nontraditional media can be found on the Company's Web site at www.arbitron.com and can be downloaded free of charge. Portable People Merersu is a mark of Arbitron Inc. © 2008 Arbitron Inc. A R B I T R O N A.ARBITRON New York 142 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019-3300 (212) 887-1300 Chicago 222 South Riverside Plaza Suite 630 Chicago, IL 60606-6101 (312) 542-1900 Atlanta 9000 Central Parkway Suite 300 Atlanta, CA 30328-1639 (770) 668-5400 Los Angeles 10877 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4341 (310) 824-6600 Dallas 13355 Noel Road Suite 1120 Dallas, TX 75240-6646 (972) 385-5388 Washington/Baltimore 9705 Patuxent Woods Drive Columbia, MD 21046-1572 (410) 312-8000 www.aFbitron.com ® 2008 Arbivon Im. Primed in the USA_ CUS 08-01616 2/08 Auseth, Angie From: Ron Clark [ron@ronclark.comj Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:19 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; parking, sign easement.pdf Angie, Here you go. Thank you ron From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:08 AM To: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Ron, Thank you for your email this morning, however, the easement agreement was not attached to the email. Could you please resend the document when you have a chance. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:09 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Good morning Angie, Attached is the Parking, Access and Utility Easement for the two parcels at Arboretum shopping center, e.g. the strip center and the gas station. The monument sign easement is also in this agreement in article #9. Please let me know if you need anything further. Ron From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:08 PM To: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Ron, Could you please email me a copy of the easement agreement for the sign location on Lot 2, Block 1. 1 would like to attach it to the staff report. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 7:31 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center You are welcome Angie. Likewise, let me know if you need anything further. im From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:52 PM To: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Thank you, Ron. I appreciate you getting back to me; I didn't want to misinterpret your intensions regarding the sign. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:48 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Jim Abrahamson Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Hello Angie, Jim asked me to respond and provide you answers to your questions below regarding the proposed LED sign. We do not have a written agreement with Amstar gas, but if they want to advertise on the LED sign we will offer them advertising time. The monument sign is owned by our strip center and we are paying entirely for the new LED sign, e.g. Amstar is not participating in that cost. The intent is to offer advertising time to the tenants in our strip center and to Amstar if they choose to advertise. Once we know the cost to maintain and operate the LED sign we will allocate an equitable cost for usage of the sign. Thank you for your help with this application process. Ron Clark Ronclark@Ronclark.com Ron Clark Construction & Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 Minnesota Business Ethics Award From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:50 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Angie, I have attached the existing sign photo and Bryan or Ron will have to answer your question about advertising Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:13 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, Will the Amstar gas station be able to advertise on this sign or is it strictly for the strip center along W 78th St? The reason I ask is because, I recalled that one of objectives (from a staff's point of view) of the LED sign is to eliminate the temporary signage along Hwy 5. Being that the sign is not owned by the gas station (property owner), I would like to verify this information. Does North Coast Partners and Century Gas have an agreement, if so may I get a copy of it. Also, can you send me a photo of the existing sign to demonstrate the before and aftereffects of the amendment? Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:16 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Angie, See Ron Clarks comment below and let me know. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax:952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 Www.Slgn-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com 1-1 From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:08 PM To: Jim Abrahamson; Bryan Monahan Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, We have a permanent easement for our monument sign so I would not think the city needs approval from the gas station. I can get a copy of the sign easement. Please let us know if that works for the city. Thanks Ron From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:12 PM To: Bryan Monahan Cc: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Sounds like they still need a signature. Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com NI From: Bryan Monahan [mailto:BryanM@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:53 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Cc: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Does it matter if we have an easement for the square of land for the sign? Or do you still need the owner of the land regardless of the easement? Thanks Bryan Bryan Monahan Director of Property Management Commercial Division Ron Clark Construction Direct: 952.947.3051 Cell: 612.363.7593 Fax: 952.947.3052 bryanm@ronclark.com From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:58 AM To: Bryan Monahan Cc: Ron Clark Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Bryan, I will need one favor to ask of you or Ron and that is to ask the building owner of the gas station to sign off on this form. The fees have been paid all we need is the signature of the property that the sign sits on. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management D 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com FE -1 From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:09 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, Have you received the signature of the property owner of 7755 Century Blvd (Lot 2 Block 1 ) for the PUD amendment application? Please send me a copy of the signed Development Review Application as the sign is located on that parcel. You can fax it, if that would be easiest 952-227-1110. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us PARKING, ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the z1 day of May, 2004, by and between Arboretum Exchange LLC ("Arboretum"), a Minnesota limited liability company, and Minnstar Builders, Inc. ("Minnstar"), a Minnesota Corporation. Recitals WHEREAS, Arboretum owns the parcel of land legally described on Exhibit .A and made a part hereof and shown as "Lot 1" on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof, WHEREAS, Minnstar owns the parcel of land legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof and shown as "Lot 2.. on Exhibit B; WHEREAS, Lots 1 and 2 are herein individually referred to as a "Lot" and collectively referred to as the "Entire Premises"; and WHEREAS, Arboretum and Minnstar desire to establish certain easements in respect to Lots 1 and 2 and to the Entire Premises. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: I:T" -94333rd I 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 2. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the term "party" shall refer to any present or future owner or owners of legal or equitable title to all or any portion of the Lots or the Entire Premises, and any mortgagee of the Lots or the Entire Premises , and their respective successors and assigns during any period of ownership. As of the effective date of this Agreement, the Owner of Lot l is Arboretum Exchange, LLC and the Owner of Lot 2 is Minnstar Builders, Inc. 3. Ingress and Egress. Each party to this Agreement hereby grants and conveys to the other party, for their use and the use by their respective agents; employees, tenants, contractors, customers and invitees, a non-exclusive easement appurtenant to and for the benefit of each Lot for the ingress and egress by vehicular and pedestrian traffic upon, over and across the parking areas, driveways, curb cuts and sidewalks (collectively, the "Parking and Access Facilities") located on the respective Lots; provided, however, that no material changes, closing or relocation shall occur on the Parking and Access Facilities as depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof without the prior consent of all parties hereto; provided further, that no fence or other barrier which would unreasonably prevent or obstruct the passage of pedestrian or vehicular travel for purposes herein permitted shall be erected or permitted within or across Parking and Access Facilities. 4. Parking. Each party to this Agreement hereby grants and conveys to the other party, for their use and the use by their agents, employees, tenants, contractors, customers and invitees, a non-exclusive easement for vehicular parking on that portion of the Parking and Access Facilities to be developed for parking purposes as shown on the attached Exhibit C, such easement to be appurtenant to and for the benefit of each Lot; provided, however, Minnstar hereby grants and conveys to Arboretum an exclusive easement for employee parking in the fourteen spaces located on the west side of the car wash on Lot 2 and shown cross -hatched on Exhibit C. 5. Indemnification and Insurance. 5.1 Indemnification. Each Owner benefited by any easement or license granted herein shall hold harmless and indemnify the burdened pan, its agents, and their respective employees, successors and assigns, from and against all loss, costs, damage, actions, suits, judgments and expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or due to, the use by such benefited Owner or its employees, agents, contractors, invitees or permittees, of the easement or license, except to the extent due to or a result of, the negligence or willful misconduct of the burdened Owner or its employees, agents, contractors, invitees or permittees. 5.2 Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance against claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in or upon such Owner's property and appurtenant easements, including contractual liability coverage for claims made pursuant to the indemnity provisions of this Agreement, in such amounts as may be carried from time to time by prudent owners of similar properties in the Minneapolis, SL Paul metropolitan area, but in all events to afford protection for limits of not less than .$,2,000,000.00 combined single limit for bodily injury or property damage. At the request of an Owner from time to time, the other Owner shall provide the requesting Owner a certificate of insurance evidencing that the coverages required hereunder are in force. All polices used to provide the coverage required by this Agreement shall (a) be endorsed to require the insurer to provide at least ten (10) days notice to the other Owner prior to cancellation, substantial modification, or non -renewal, and (b) be issued by financially sound companies having an A.M.* Best Company rating of at least ANII. Each Owner shall name the other Owner as additional insured under all such policies. 6. Maintenance. Except as provided in paragraph 7 below, each party shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Parking and Access Facilities on its Lot at all times in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris. Arboretum shall maintain the road located on the adjacent property (the " :Adjacent Drive") providing ingress and egress to West 78'h Street shown on Exhibit D in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris until such time a building permit is issued for construction upon the adjacent property, at which time maintenance for the Adjacent Drive shall revert to the owner of the adjacent property. Minstar shall be responsible for one-half ('/) of the costs incurred by Arboretum in so maintaining the Adjacent Drive, which shall be payable within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice from Arboretum for the amount due. 7. Common Drive. Arboretum shall maintain the area depicted as the "Common Drive" on Exhibit C in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris. Minnstar shall be responsible for one-half (%) of the costs incurred by Arboretum in so maintaining the Common Drive, which shall be payable within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice from Arboretum for the amount due. 8. Utility Easement. Each party hereby grants and conveys to the other party an easement for utility purposes over, on, across, under and through the Entire Premises, together with the right of ingress to and egress from the Lots for the purpose of inspecting; repairing and maintaining any and all utilities. 9. Monument Sien. Minnstar hereby grants and conveys to Arboretum an easement on Lot 2 for the purpose of erecting and utilizing a monument sign (the "Monument Sign") in a 10' by 20' area in the location depicted on the attached Exhibit C (the "Sign Easement Area"). The Monument Sign shall be solely utilized, operated and maintained by Arboretum. Arboretum may also use the Sign Easement Area for installing and maintaining a "Retail Space for Lease" boulevard sign to be used as needed and at the sole discretion of Arboretum. 10. Legal Effect. Each of the easements and rights created by this Agreement are perpetual (except as specifically stated herein) and are appurtenant to the Entire Premises.. and run with the land, and may not be transferred, assigned or encumbered except as an appurtenance to such properties. Each covenant contained in this Agreement constitutes a covenant running with the land. Each Owner of either Lot I or Lot 2 covenants and agrees that on conveyance of all or any part of the fee title to either Lot i or Lot 2, the grantee, by accepting such conveyance, will thereby become a new Owner under, and be bound by, this Agreement. On such acceptance and deemed assumption by a grantee, the conveying Owner of either Lot I or Lot 2 will thereafter be released from any obligation under this Agreement arising thereafter with respect to either Lot 1 or Lot 2 so conveyed. Each Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 agrees, on written request of the conveying Owner, to execute and deliver any appropriate documents or instruments to evidence such release, but failure to obtain such document will not affect the effectiveness of this release. 11. Amendment. This Agreement and any provision herein contained may be terminated, extended, modified or amended only with the express written consent of the then current Owners of the Entire Premises. No amendment, modification, extension or termination of this Agreement will affect the rights of the holder of any mortgage constituting a lien on any of the Entire Premises unless such mortgagee consents to the same. No tenant, licensee or other person having only a possessory interest in the improvements on the Entire Premises will be required to join in execution of or consent to any action taken from time to time by the Owners pursuant to this Agreement. l2_ Condemnation. If the whole or any part of the Entire Premises is taken for any public or quasi -public use under any governmental law, ordinance or regulation, or by right of eminent domain, any Owner benefited by an easement or covenant created by this Agreement will not share in any award, compensation or other payment made to the Owner of the parcel that was taken by reason of the taking of the parcel or a portion of the parcel which is subject to such easement or covenant and such award, compensation or other payment will belong entirely to the Owner of the parcel or that portion of the parcel to which is taken, and such Owner will have no further liability to any other Owner for the loss of such easements or covenants. or a portion thereof. located on the parcel (or the leasehold interest therein) so taken - 13 - aken. 13. Default; Remedies. If any Owner defaults in any obligation requiring the payment of money and fails to cure the default within fifteen (1 S) days after receiving written notice thereof, or if any Owner defaults in any of its other obligations under any provision hereof and fails to commence such action as is necessary to cure such default within thirty (30) days after written notice of default is given by any nondefaulting Owner, or fails to proceed diligently thereafter to cure such default, the nondefaulting Owner may enforce such obligations by an action at law or suit in equity, or may perform or pay all or any part of such obligations and charge the cost of performing or the payment made, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the defaulting Owner. The nondefaulting Owner is hereby granted a right of entry onto the defaulting Owner's property, with such personnel, materials and equipment as may be necessary for purposes of performing any obligation of the defaulting Owner hereunder that has not been performed within the time allowed. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, in the event of an emergency° involving an imminent threat to human health or safety or the likelihood of substantial property damage, the foregoing right of entry may be exercised with only such notice as is practical under the circumstances, which may include notice given after the fact. All indebtedness of an Owner hereunder shall bear interest from the date incurred at a rate per annum equal to 2% in excess of the then reference rate as publicly announced from time to time by U.S. Bank National Association (or any successor national bank). and the indebtedness, interest, and all reasonable costs of suit or collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees, whether suit be brought or not, with interest on all such costs at the rate above set forth. shall be payable on demand of the creditor, and shall be enforceable by any remedy then available at law or in equity. In addition, without the act or deed of any Owner, any such indebtedness, interest and costs shall constitute a lien against the property owned by the defaulting Owner from and after the date the notice of such lien is filed in the same office in Carver County, Minnesota in which this Agreement is filed. Such lien shall be enforceable in the same manner as a lien for labor and materials pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 514, as the same may be amended. Failure to enforce any covenants hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 14. Lien Subordinate to Mortgages. Any lien granted hereby to secure any obligations of an Owner shall be subordinate to the lien of any mortgage now or hereafter placed upon either Lot I or Lot 2; provided, however, that such subordination shall apply only to the obligations which have become due and payable prior to a sale or transfer of such property or leasehold interest pursuant to a decree of foreclosure, or any other proceeding in lieu of foreclosure, and the expiration of any redemption period. Such sale or transfer shall not relieve such property from liability for any obligations thereafter becoming due, nor from any lien of any such subsequent obligations. 15. No Right to Terminate Due to Breach. No breach of this Agreement will entitle any Owner to cancel, rescind or otherwise terminate this Agreement provided that the foregoing limitation will not affect, in any manner, any other right or remedy which any Owner might have by reason of any breach of this Agreement. 16. Miscellaneous. 16.1 Notices. All notices, communications, demands and requests permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when personally delivered, when delivered to a reliable and recognized overnight courier or messenger service which provide receipts of delivery or when deposited it) the United States mail in a sealed envelope sent by registered or certified mail with postage prepaid, addressed as follows or to such other address as is set forth in a notice given in accordance with this Section: If to Arboretum Exchange: c/o Ron C'ark 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota 55439 Fax # 952.947.3030 with copy to: Foley & Mansfield 250 Marquette Avenue Suite 1200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax # 612.338.8788 If to Minnstar Builders. Ron Clark 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota 55439 Fax # 952.947.3030 with copy to: Foley & %lansfield 250 Marquette Avenue Suite 1200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax # 612.338.8788 16.2 Separate Mortgages. The Owners benefitted by any easement created hereby and any Owner owning property subject to any easement created hereby shalt have the right separately to create mortgages, deeds of trust, or other liens upon their separate estates, such estates being subject to and together with the easements and other covenants created herein. 16.3 Estoppel Certificates: Each Owner shall, within 15 days after receiving a written request from another Owner, which requests may be made from time to time but no more than three times in any 12 -month period, issue an estoppel certificate addressed to such Owners as may be specified by the requesting Owner stating: (a) whether the Owner to whom the request had been directed knows of any default udder this Agreement, and if there are knoxkn defaults, specifying the nature thereof; (b) whether, to the Owner's knowledge, this Agreement has been modified or amended in any way (and, if it has, identifying such amendments or modifications); (c) that, to the Owner's knowledge, this Agreement is in full force and effect as of the date of the estoppel certificate, or if not, then so stating; (d) the nature and extent of any setoffs, claims or defenses then being asserted or otherwise known by the Owner against enforcement of such Owner's obligations hereunder; (e) whether, and for what amount, the Owner executing such certificate is then claiming a right to reimbursement from the Owner requesting such certificate; and (f) such other matters as may reasonably be required. Any such estoppel certificate shall act as a waiver of any claim by the Owner executing it against the Owner or Owners to whom such certificate is addressed, to the extent such claim is based upon facts contrary to those asserted in the certificate and to the extent the claim is asserted against a bona fide encumbrancer or purchaser for rent without knowledge of facts contrary to those contained in the statement, who has acted in reasonable reliance upon the certificate; however, such certificate shall in no event subject the Owner furnishing it to any liability whatsoever, unless the certificate was given in bad faith. 16.4 No Dedication. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of all or any portion of the easements herein granted, or any thereof, to or for the general public, it being the Owners' intention that such easements be for the exclusive benefit of the Owners. 16.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is, to any extent, declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement (or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those in respect of which the determination of invalidity or unenforceability was made) will not be affected thereby and each provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 16.6 Further Liability Limitation. Under this Agreement, the liability of and their respective successors and assigns will be limited to their respective interests in the Property and the Adjacent Property, respectively. 16.7 No Merger. If an Owner owns both the fee interest in the Property and the Adjacent Property, then this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 16.8 Governing Laws. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota. 16.9 Time is of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 16.10 Counterparts. This Agreement maybe executed in any number of counterparts, any or all of which may contain the signature of only one of the Owners, and all of which will be construed together as a single instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Arboretum Exchange, LLC and Minnstar Builders, Inc. have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. ARBORETUM EXCHANGE, ILL By: Name: rfBxALD fir (2CAAC Its: MINNSTAR BUILDERS, INC. By: Zq� is U+ Name: &mA c j*.s oE. C c4AA-- Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1nAWMd- ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Pr(L2Vl The fore oing strument was ackno%yle a before me this 21t day of May, 2004, by �� F Xk , the of Arboretum Exchange, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behaft of the company. Basilikoula E. Oetting Allen County Resident My Commission Expires April 2, 2011 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public ) SSAd a t^ The fore oing i trumethe C4 • ofMinnnt was acknowledged before me this � day of May, 2004, by Tj (law star Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. This instrument was drafted by: Basilikoula E. Getting FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. Allen County Resident 250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200 My Commission ExpiresApri12,2011 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 EXHIBIT A Lot 1 Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota EXHIBIT A-1 Lot 2 Legal Description Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota 9 1191HX3 VA 11W BUILDING A RETAIL .e .4c( BUILDING 'S" A COFFEE SHOP & SHELLSTORE a 11 `� 0 4 . . . . . . . ..... 581 0 Auseth, Angie From: Ron Clark [ron @ ronclark.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 7:31 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg You are welcome Angie. Likewise, let me know if you need anything further. Ron From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:52 PM To: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Thank you, Ron. I appreciate you getting back to me; I didn't want to misinterpret your intensions regarding the sign. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:48 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; ]im Abrahamson Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Hello Angie, Jim asked me to respond and provide you answers to your questions below regarding the proposed LED sign. We do not have a written agreement with Amstar gas, but if they want to advertise on the LED sign we will offer them advertising time. The monument sign is owned by our strip center and we are paying entirely for the new LED sign, e.g. Amstar is not participating in that cost. The intent is to offer advertising time to the tenants in our strip center and to Amstar if they choose to advertise. Once we know the cost to maintain and operate the LED sign we will allocate an equitable cost for usage of the sign. Thank you for your help with this application process. Ron Clark Ronclark@Ronclark.com Ron Clark Construction & Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 Minnesota Business Ethics Award From: Jim Abrahamson [mai Ito:]imA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:50 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Angie, I have attached the existing sign photo and Bryan or Ron will have to answer your question about advertising. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales I Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com a From: Auseth, Angie[mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:13 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, Will the Amstar gas station be able to advertise on this sign or is it strictly for the strip center along W 78`" SO The reason I ask is because, I recalled that one of objectives (from a staff's point of view) of the LED sign is to eliminate the temporary signage along Hwy 5. Being that the sign is not owned by the gas station (property owner), I would like to verify this information. Does North Coast Partners and Century Gas have an agreement, if so may I get a copy of it. Also, can you send me a photo of the existing sign to demonstrate the before and after effects of the amendment? Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:16 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Angie, See Ron Clarks comment below and let me know. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson sales / Pmiect Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:08 PM To: Jim Abrahamson; Bryan Monahan Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, We have a permanent easement for our monument sign so I would not think the city needs approval from the gas station. I can get a copy of the sign easement. Please let us know if that works for the city. Thanks Ron From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:12 PM To: Bryan Monahan Cc: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Sounds like they still need a signature. Jim Abrahamson sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sian-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com FE] From: Bryan Monahan [mailto:BryanM@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:53 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Cc: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Does it matter if we have an easement for the square of land for the sign? Or do you still need the owner of the land regardless of the easement? Thanks Bryan Bryan Monahan Director of Property Management Commercial Division Ron Clark Construction Direct: 952.947.3051 Cell: 612.363.7593 Fax: 952.947.3052 bryanm@ronclark.com From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:58 AM To: Bryan Monahan Cc: Ron Clark Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Bryan, I will need one favor to ask of you or Ron and that is to ask the building owner of the gas station to sign off on this form. The fees have been paid all we need is the signature of the property that the sign sits on. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com 01 From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:09 AM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, Have you received the signature of the property owner of 7755 Century Blvd (Lot 2 Block 1 ) for the PUD amendment application? Please send me a copy of the signed Development Review Application as the sign is located on that parcel. You can fax it, if that would be easiest 952-227-1110. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:13 AM To: 'Jim Abrahamson' Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg Jim, Will the Amstar gas station be able to advertise on this sign or is it strictly for the strip center along W 78`h St? The reason I ask is because, I recalled that one of objectives (from a staff's point of view) of the LED sign is to eliminate the temporary signage along Hwy 5. Being that the sign is not owned by the gas station (property owner), I would like to verify this information. Does North Coast Partners and Century Gas have an agreement, if so may I get a copy of it. Also, can you send me a photo of the existing sign to demonstrate the before and after effects of the amendment? Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:16 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Angie, See Ron Clarks comment below and let me know. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax:952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com 9 From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:08 PM To: Jim Abrahamson; Bryan Monahan Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, We have a permanent easement for our monument sign so I would not think the city needs approval from the gas station. I can get a copy of the sign easement. Please let us know if that works for the city. Thanks :r.T From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:12 PM To: Bryan Monahan Cc: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Sounds like they still need a signature. Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com ■ From: Bryan Monahan [mailto:BryanM@ronclark.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:53 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Cc: Ron Clark Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center Does it matter if we have an easement for the square of land for the sign? Or do you still need the owner of the land regardless of the easement? Thanks Bryan Bryan Monahan Director of Property Management Commercial Division Ron Clark Construction Direct: 952.947.3051 Cell: 612.363.7593 Fax: 952.947.3052 bryanm@ronclark.com From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:58 AM To: Bryan Monahan Cc: Ron Clark Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center Hi Bryan, I will need one favor to ask of you or Ron and that is to ask the building owner of the gas station to sign off on this form. The fees have been paid all we need is the signature of the property that the sign sits on. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas@sign-source.com F I From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:09 AM To: )im Abrahamson Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center Jim, Have you received the signature of the property owner of 7755 Century Blvd (Lot 2 Block 1 ) for the PUD amendment application? Please send me a copy of the signed Development Review Application as the sign is located on that parcel. You can fax it, if that would be easiest 952-227-1110. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM To: 'Jim Abrahamson' Subject: Century Plaza Good morning Jim, I have a couple of questions regarding the application for Century Plaza PUD Amendment. First, our records show the owner to be Century Gas LLC, and the application shows Northcoast... Can you please verify the owner. The owner must also sign the Development Review application; a faxed signed copy would be fine. Second, we had discussed a new check in the amount of $300, 1 just wanted to check on the status of that, has it been mailed? We will then return the other check upon receipt of the new one. Please let me know if you have any questions. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:26 PM To: 'Jim Abrahamson' Subject: RE: Century Plaza Thanks Jim, I have you down for the August 19th Planning Commission meeting and the September 8th City Council meeting agendas, pending Friday's submittal. Please let me know if this changes. Best regards, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aausethoci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:limA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:43 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst Subject: RE: Century Plaza Hi Angie, Thanks for the reply and I will send it over asap if the customer is ready. Bryan do you want to move forward with this? If so I will need a signed drawing and should get a down payment to get this to the city for approval. Thanks, Jim Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 1 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas(@sign-source.com -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie[mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:38 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: RE: Century Plaza Jim, The sign looks good. The height will not change, correct? Other than that, you will need to get a conditional use permit for the LED portion of the sign. Please let me know what I can help you with; the next submittal deadline is this Friday, August 1, 2008. Best regards, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aausethoci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:13 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst Subject: FW: Century Plaza Hi Angie, Please review the attached drawing for the revamp of the existing sign at Century Plaza and let me know if the city staff will support this request. Thanks, Jim V Jim Abrahamson Sales / Project Management 7660 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct: 952-908-9106 Cell: 612-964-5165 efax: 952-908-9146 fax:952-975-9209 www.sign-source.com Assistant: Justina Sleeper 952-908-9125 justinas(@sign-source.com -----Original Message ----- From: Korey McDermott Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:05 PM To: Jim Abrahamson Subject: Century Plaza Jim, Here is the proof for Century. K 3