Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWorkshop Item 2 02/09/2015(i) DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Workshop Agenda Item #2 February 9, 2015 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager Heather Hines, Planning Manager Sign Code Workshop RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a workshop and provide feedback on the direction and focus of the upcoming Sign Code update. BACI{GROUND Updating the City's sign code has been among the City Council's goals for several years, and was most recently re -adopted as a goal priority in March 2013. Based on discussion at the City Council's January 31, 2015 goal -setting session, "Revise the Sign Ordinance" is expected to be a City Council goal priority for the 2015 and 2016 goal period. Although the Sign Code was revised in 2014 to modify provisions addressing freeway -oriented signage, the Code has not received significant attention in many years. Because the Code has not been thoroughly updated in many years, it contains provisions that are out of date, inconsistent with current statutes and case law, and/or provisions that do not reflect best practices in sign code regulation and community planning. Following is a summary of those areas of the current Sign Code that has been identified as being problematic in implementation, and suggestions for improvements. Also provided is an outline of the key tasks recommended to be completed to revise the Sign Code. DISCUSSION Campaign Signs IZO Section 20.100 outlines requirements for permitting political or campaign signs. The City's existing sign code needs updates to conform to the current state of the law governing permissible govermnent regulation of expressive activity protected by the first amendment. In general, the sign code requires revisions to avoid content -based regulation. which is almost never upheld by the courts. This is true of provisions governing campaign signs that treat such signs differently from other signs based on their political messages. Revisions are recommended that regulate campaign signs in content and viewpoint neutral ways, such as through limitations on sign size, aggregate square footage allowed on any one property. type and/or quality of materials, location, and duration of placement. Revisions are also recommended to revise or eliminate code provisions that may afford City officials unfettered discretion regarding approval or disapproval of expressive activity. Tewporary Signs The Council's recently adopted sign code amendments related to freeway -oriented signage included a modification to the definition of wall signs to differentiate temporary barriers from permanent wall signs. However, it is recommended that additional clarification be incorporated into Chapter 20 to clarify limits on the use of temporary signage and to strengthen enforcement around the use of temporary signage such as barriers and pennants. This issue is particularly important if it is the Council's desire to limit sign clutter and create attractive pedestrian -oriented streetscapes throughout the City's commercial districts. There has not been significant work conducted in this area, but we would look to other jurisdictions for approaches that balance the advertising needs of businesses with aesthetic concerns, and then tailor a solution for Petaluma. For example, some nearby cities provide specific guidelines that regulate not only the amount, size and placement of temporary signs but also provide direction on the aesthetic quality of the signs. A -Frame Signs A -Frame signs have been prevalent in the downtown area for years, and more recently have proliferated throughout many of the City's commercial districts. A -Frame signs are prohibited by the current Sign Code, and therefore these signs are unpermitted and unregulated. Significant issues with A -Frame signs are placement within the public right-of-way, and with obstruction of path of travel. It is acknowledged, however, that A -Frame signs are an important method of advertising for businesses in areas where individual businesses have limited sign exposure, such as the Downtown, due to development patterns and commercial intensity. One suggestion for eliminating A -Frame signs in the downtown may be to establish a coordinated way -finding signage program that would allow downtown businesses to have additional identification but remove the individual A - Frame signs placed along already constricted sidewalks. The City of Healdsburg has a similar way -finding program around their central square. which functions well as a pedestrian amenity. Feedback from the City Council on this item will direct efforts to explore r) this option and discuss it with the Petaluma Dov.9nown Association as part of the sign code update. Doi rntoti n -Specific Signage Program There may be benefits to consider specific signage regulations for different geographical areas such as the downtown which offers a unique context and opportunity. The recently revised SmartCode provided detailed sign options based on the zoning designations that may be suitable to extend to the larger downtown area. Feedback from the Council on whether this approach is desirable to differentiate types and sizes of signs in the downtown will direct efforts to explore this option. Discussion with the Petaluma Downtown Association regarding this approach would be a critical piece of public outreach. 6l"indow Coverage The City's existing Sign Code exempts window signs in business establishments from requirements of a sign permit. The Code does not provide any direction on the size, type, placement or amount of allowed window signs or decals, or the duration of time they can be displayed. It is recommended that regulations be prepared as part of the code update that address and limit window coverage to reduce visual clutter and provide a more aesthetic appeal. This will be particularly important to enhance the pedestrian environment in the Downtown area. For example some cities provide a maximum percentage (e.g., 20-25%) of the window area where permanent signs can be affixed. Sign Programs Multiple tenant commercial centers often utilize a sign program to create an organized and complementary approach to all signage within the center. It is recommended that a proactive design approach be utilized for all commercial centers. However, because there are no standards for the level of detail or content of sign programs, the approach and effectiveness varies greatly between sign programs. Additionally, minimum standards to address common items such as maintenance, sign removal, and the review process are not routinely outlined as part of a sign program, although they are extremely important to the ongoing success and enforcement of the implementation of an adopted sign program. As part of the larger sign code update, it is recommended that a section be added specifically to address sign programs, including applicability and approval process, minimum submittal requirements, and required elements of a sign program. For instance, all sign programs should include provisions for maintenance and sign removal and outline review and approval requirements for all tenants within the development. Additionally, flexibility could be provided to allow community-based signage when incorporated into the overall sign program without such signage counting towards overall square footage calculations. Shopping Center Calculations As part of the review of new signage for the Deer Creek Village and East Washington Place shopping centers, staff encountered ongoing difficulties with the implementation of the sign area calculation formula currently outlined in the IZO. The matrix of allowable sign area is based on the total number of tenants in a cominercial center and is outlined as part of the sign program. However, the number and size of tenant spaces change considerably during the tenant improvement process (building permit) which is after approval of the sign program. It is 3 recommended to explore alternative methods for calculating sign area for shopping centers to provide flexibility to adequately respond to changes in tenant leasing. Chatered Signs Chapter 20 does not include minimum limitations on sign copy size and therefore it is not uncommon for a proposed sign to include not only the name of the business but also a list of services. In an effort to reduce sign clutter and encourage clarity and simplicity in sign design, it is recommended to add code language that sets minimum copy size limits for primary signage and/or restricts signs to the name of the business. Some cities, including Santa Rosa, include this type of limitation in their sign codes. In fact, Petaluma includes this limitation for primary signs within the Downtown Commercial Historic District. Lighting Because of its age, the Sign Code does not address energy efficient and innovative lighting options. It is recommended that language be updated accordingly to reference the newest technology, the importance of energy efficiency in considering sign lighting, and the aesthetic benefits of different lighting approaches. Combining Sign Area There have been several examples where a business that occupies multiple tenant spaces is allowed an overall sign area representative of the sum of the multiple spaces. The result is generally a sign that is out of context with other signs in the commercial center. In response, it is recommended that a limitation on sign area be considered when multiple tenant spaces are combined for a single tenant. Sign Measurement As currently required in the IZO, sign area is measured as the smallest rectangle that can be drawn around the total exterior surface of the signs, including both sign copy and logos. While this definition of sign area can result in greater limitation on the size of signage, it has often resulted in less creativity in sign design. This is particularly seen in the use of logos or differentiating fonts that include a taller element that then dictates the dimension of the rectangle even though it may not actually result in more sign copy. It is recommended that the definition of sign area be closely considered to ensure creativity in sign area while not increasing overall sign massing throughout the City. Freestanding Signs During consideration of sign programs for both the Deer Creel: Village and East Washington Square shopping centers, the issue of placement, height, and quantity of freestanding signs were discussed. The importance of pedestrian orientation in marry areas of Petaluma should be carefully considered as part of the discussion of freestanding signs in terms of their height and size. It is recommended that base requirements for freestanding signs for both shopping centers and general commercial areas be closely considered in an effort to allow clear business identification while ensuring that freestanding signs do not overwhelm or clutter the streetscape. 4 Enforcement Perhaps the most commonly discussed issues with Petaluma's Sign Code relate to enforcement of existing regulations. This is especially pertinent to the proliferation of banners, pennants, and other temporary signs in many commercial areas throughout the City. Due to extremely limited enforcement staff there has been minimal enforcement of sign violations. Enforcement is typically complaint -based and addressed if determined to be a safety hazard such as signs that impede the pedestrian right-of-way or those that encroach onto the sight distance of vehicles. Additional staffing would be necessary to initiate more concerted enforcement of unpernitted signs on an ongoing and equitable basis. If desired by the City Council, options can be explored and recommended for generating additional revenue for sign enforcement as part of the sign code update. In Sunnnmy Council's feedback and direction is desired on the items brought forward for discussion, as well as any others the Council believes are important to evaluate as part of a Sign Code Update. PROJECT OUTLINE The following is the proposed outline of key tasks for the sign code update process. The primary goal of the project will be to prepare a sign code that is comprehensive and user-friendly with supportive images and graphics to illustrate regulations. The updated sign code will also be consistent with best practices and the latest case law. It is anticipated that the project will be completed over the next 10-I2 months as identified below. I. City Council Workshop / Kick-off Meeting (Februaiy 2015) II. Background Research and Investigation (February — March 2015) III. Stakeholder/Focus Group Meetings (March — April 2015) IV. Admin Draft Sign Code (April —July 2015) V. Public Review Draft Sign Code (August — September 2015) VI. PC Study Session (October 2015) VII. Community Engagement (Informal Pop-up Workshops) (October — November 2015) VIII. Final Draft Sign Code (December 2015—Janumy 2016) IX. PC Meetings (Recommendation) (Jannai), 2016) X. CC Meetings (Adoption) (Februar), 2016) FINANCIAL IMPACTS Full finding is not available from City sources to support the estimated cost of a sign code revision, which is expected to cost between $50,000 and $60,000. Like recent revisions to the section of the Code related to freeway -oriented signage, staff proposes to solicit support from businesses to fund these costs. Merlone Geier, Inc. and Regency Centers have indicated interest in assisting the City with this project.