HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/06/2011 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 178, 2011, AMENDINGDATE: December 6, 2011
STAFF: Peter Barnes, Steve Dush
Bruce Hendee, Ginny Sawyer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 33
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding Digital Signs and Pole Signs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to Council feedback, staff has prepared an ordinance amending current Land Use Code regulations for
digital signs and freestanding pole signs. With respect to digital signs, the recommended Code changes address such
things as brightness, color, design, and location. Additional design criteria to enhance the appearance of pole signs
are also proposed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The continuing proliferation of digital signs within the community may begin to impact the overall aesthetic
environment. Given these concerns, staff conducted an evaluation of the existing sign code regulations pertaining to
digital signs. Fort Collins has been a leader in regulating signage to create a visually pleasing urban environment and
staff determined that while the current standards provide a framework for effective regulation, improvements can be
made.
A principle of the City’s sign code is to protect health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, construction, and
placement of signs in the city in a manner that provides a reasonable balance between the right of a business or an
individual to identify itself and to convey its message and the right of the public to a safe and aesthetically pleasing
environment.
The City’s first comprehensive sign code was adopted in 1971 and required that all signs not in compliance with the
new regulations be made conforming by 1977. Many sign code amendments have been adopted since 1971, most
of them minor in nature. However, major amendments were adopted in 1994, and because of the comprehensive
nature of the changes the City Council allowed a 15 year amortization period for business owners to bring their signs
into compliance. That amortization period ended in 2009, with numerous businesses electing to replace their
previously existing nonconforming signs with conforming digital signs or conforming pole signs.
At the August 9, 2011 City Council work session, City staff presented an overview of issues regarding the following:
• the adequacy of the City’s current sign regulations to address the increasing number of digital signs in the
community now and into the future, and
• adding design criteria to improve the aesthetic appearance of pole signs.
After considering various options at the work session, Council requested staff come return with an ordinance for
consideration that continues to allow digital signs, but with additional regulations, and an ordinance that includes
additional design criteria for pole signs.
Digital Signs
Digital signs (signs that display words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed
by remote or automatic means) began appearing in Fort Collins in the early 2000s and it was appropriate at that time
to consider regulating this form of sign in the community to protect the visual welfare of the city. In response, the City
adopted a digital sign ordinance in 2006 to regulate the size, brightness, method of display, and color of such signs.
There are approximately 1,500 permitted on-premise freestanding signs (signs not attached to a building) currently
in the city. In 2009 at the conclusion of the amortization period, about 40 of the non-conforming signs were converted
to digital signs. This number has doubled to approximately 80, and represents 30% of all new freestanding signs
December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 33
erected since 2009. Looking ahead over the next twenty years, based upon this rate of increase, many additional
signs could be converted to digital.
To address the anticipated proliferation and the renewed concerns about brightness and aesthetics, it is appropriate
to evaluate this type of sign and its relationship to the economic and aesthetic environment of Fort Collins now and
into the future. Staff believes that the current standards provide a framework for effective regulation, but improvements
can be made that will help to more effectively balance the right of a business to convey its message with the right of
the public to enjoy an aesthetically pleasing streetscape.
City staff held a series of meetings with stakeholders before and after the August 9, 2011 City Council work session.
These meetings have resulted in a number of proposed changes to the current digital sign regulations. Key elements
of the changes are:
• Brightness levels
The current regulations do not contain specific maximum brightness levels. The proposed ordinance requires
that automatic dimming software and solar sensors maintain a maximum brightness of 0.3 foot candles over
the ambient light conditions at any time of day or night. The permit application must contain written
certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory pre-set not to exceed this level.
Additionally, something that will be unique to Fort Collins is that the permit holder and the business manager,
business owner, or property manager must be present at the time the City inspects the sign for compliance.
This will offer an opportunity for City staff to explain the regulations and how the brightness level will be
inspected for future compliance and enforcement.
• Color
Staff believes full-color displays limited to just the logo or ‘brand’ of the business could be acceptable given
the proposed brightness controls and other proposed regulations. However, the City Attorney advised staff
that only allowing the logo or brand without allowing pictures of products or other images would be unlawful.
Staff believes that allowing full color displays of products and images that could change as frequently as once
per minute would be detrimental; therefore, staff is recommending that the current full-color ban be kept. Also
with regard to color, staff is recommending that red should once again be allowed as an acceptable color for
monochrome displays. The proposed brightness controls and tighter pixel spacing for new signs make red
an acceptable color.
• Design criteria
In order to ensure that digital signs do not detract from the aesthetic appearance of streetscapes, the
recommended ordinance requires that an electronic module not exceed 50% of the area of the sign face, that
it is integrally designed as a part of the larger sign face or structure, that it is not the predominant element or
uppermost portion of the sign, and that it is not allowed on a pole sign. Another significant criterion is that
there would be a maximum pixel spacing of 16 mm for all new digital signs capable of allowing a selection of
more than one color (but not more than one color displayed at a time) and a maximum spacing of 19 mm for
signs that are manufactured as monochrome-only. The industry is moving toward closer pixel spacing and
this is a cutting-edge criteria intended to ensure that future signs will display a sharper image of higher quality.
Most existing digital signs in the City have pixel spacing between 19 mm and 35 mm.
• Location and number of signs
The ordinance limits the number of digital signs to not more than one wall sign or one monument sign per
street abutting any property or development, requires that such signs be at least 100 feet apart, and prohibits
them on walls of downtown buildings that are located within the boundaries of the Portable Sign Placement
Area Map (See Attachment 9). Signs that are located inside a building and visible from a street or sidewalk
will be subject to compliance with all of the regulations pertaining to method of display, flashing, color, etc.
• Compliance dates
The current code allows a fifteen year period in which signs made nonconforming by code amendments must
be brought into compliance. This fifteen year period was enacted as part of the 1994 sign code revisions.
December 6, 2011 -3- ITEM 33
Because those revisions were very comprehensive, affecting most signs that existed in the city at that time,
the City Council determined that a very generous compliance period was appropriate.
The proposed amendments recommended with this ordinance affect only a small portion of all existing signs.
Therefore, staff believes that it is not appropriate to apply the fifteen year time limit to existing digital signs. Instead,
this ordinance establishes several compliance dates of different duration for signs that are made nonconforming by
the new regulations. Staff is proposing that signs which can be corrected by simply flipping a switch (e.g., interior
window signs), will have thirty days in which to comply with the new regulations. Signs that will require more
substantial modifications, but not removal or structural modifications, will have four years. Signs that require removal
or structural changes will have eight years. However, as required by existing code provisions, such signs will have
to be brought into compliance sooner than the applicable date if the use of the property changes or if the premises
promoted by the sign comes under new ownership or tenancy and the sign is proposed to be changed for the purpose
of displaying the new name or other new identification of the premises.
Pole Signs
The sign code allows for two types of freestanding signs (signs not attached to a building). A ground sign (also known
as a monument sign), is a type of freestanding sign that consists of a sign face or cabinet that is mounted on top of
a base, the width of which is at least 80% of the width of the sign cabinet, i.e, a 10-foot wide sign cabinet mounted on
a base that is at least 8-foot wide. A pole sign, on the other hand, is often a sign cabinet mounted on top of one or
two exposed poles, with considerable air space between the sign and the ground. Pole signs are generally not as
attractive as ground signs, and in fact the sign code contains regulations that are intended to encourage the use of
ground signs as the preferred type of sign. (See Attachment 10 for pictures of monument signs and pole signs).
The completion of the 2009 sign compliance project resulted in a number of the previous nonconforming pole signs
being replaced with ground signs. However, some existing pole signs were simply lowered rather than replaced. The
number of pole signs in the city really didn’t decrease as a result of the 15 year compliance period, and there may have
actually been a slight increase in the number of such signs since some of the nonconforming signs that were ground
signs were replaced with new pole signs. As a result, opportunities to increase the number of more aesthetically
pleasing ground signs in the city through replacement did not materialize.
In order to ensure that there will be fewer new or remodeled signs supported by simply one or two exposed poles, a
Code amendment is necessary. The amendment will require that pole signs be designed in a manner that will result
in a more substantial and interesting design, helping to ensure that they will contribute to the aesthetic appearance
of the streetscape. This can be accomplished by limiting the amount of air space between the top of the sign and the
ground to not more than 40%. This added design criteria for pole signs will further the purpose of the sign code to
enhance the visual streetscape of the city.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Business owners have strongly expressed that the advertising flexibility offered by digital signs is an important factor
that contributes to increased sales and the success of local businesses. Owners installed digital signs at great
expense in reliance on the regulations adopted in 2006 and the proposed revisions will allow many of these signs to
remain without the need for expensive modifications or removal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The primary environmental concern associated with signs in the community is their impact on the visual environment
of Fort Collins. With regard to digital signs, it is important to be proactive in considering regulations in order to manage
the potential expansion of these signs throughout the city. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board believe that the
recommended changes will improve upon the existing standards through better and more enforceable brightness
standards and through standards that will improve the design and visual appearance of digital signs and pole signs.
December 6, 2011 -4- ITEM 33
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff believes that the new regulations provide
additional standards necessary to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing environment while allowing businesses to
continue to effectively utilize digital and pole signs to convey their message. Continued monitoring of the effectiveness
of the regulations is very important and Staff is proposing that a monitoring program to analyze their effectiveness after
two years be added to the Policy and Plan Review Schedule.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on November 17, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend that City
Council adopt the Ordinance amending the Land Use Code.
The Board’s motion to recommend approval contained a provision that the design criteria in Sec. 3.8.7(M)(4)(e) be
amended by removing the words “or uppermost portion”. This change has the effect of allowing an electronic message
center to be placed as the uppermost portion of the sign as long as it is an integral part of the overall design of the sign.
Staff agrees with this change, and the language in the recommended ordinance has been amended.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A number of outreach meetings have been held with stakeholders and the public to seek feedback on the issues. Staff
focused outreach on five main stakeholder groups: sign industry representatives, Chamber of Commerce, sign
owners, small business owners, and the general public. Feedback regarding pole sign design criteria was also
solicited at the meetings, but the major focus and interest was on digital signs. Most of the outreach meetings were
conducted prior to the August 9, 2011 City Council work session, with an additional 4 meetings held after the work
session.
Prior to August 9, 2011, feedback was also solicited on the City of Fort Collins’ Facebook and Your Voice websites
(70 total responses). Outreach included basic overviews of the current sign code, open-ended questions about the
use and effectiveness of digital signs, thoughts on current and potential new regulations, sign trends, and the impact
of digital signs on the streetscape both now and in the future. The majority of these respondents believed that current
standards did a good job of regulating these signs and that continued allowance of them wouldn’t have a negative
impact. (See Attachment 7 for individual responses).
In general, the sign industry representatives, Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee, and sign
owners do not support significant change to the City’s current Code. The groups strongly stressed the benefit to
businesses that digital signs offer, including ease of promoting on multi-tenant locations, employee safety, less reliance
on banners, and the ability to be timely with messaging. There was also comment that the City’s current Code does
not allow for more attractive signs by only allowing monochrome pixel type signs. It was noted that industry trends
and technology improvements are leading to more digital signs in the future, and they will have higher resolution and
messaging capabilities. (See Attachments 2, 3, and 4 for summary minutes of the meetings).
The Cityworks Alumni group and the members of the Planning and Zoning Board generally agreed that there is not
much of a problem with the digital signs as currently allowed. However, they were supportive of adjustments to the
Code to ensure quality standards with the anticipated increase in the number of such signs. They felt that continued
use would not have a detrimental affect on the streetscapes into the future as long as the signs are regulated with
regard to frequency of change, no animation, limits on the percent of a sign that can be digital, etc. The majority of
both groups expressed that such signs offered businesses additional flexibility. Some suggested that the City should
allow the use of full-color displays rather than just restricting to monochrome. (See Attachment 6 for summary minutes
of the CityWorks meeting).
What little feedback there was on the pole sign issue was about evenly split between those who believe the signs are
fine the way they are and those that believe the additional design criteria would be beneficial.
December 6, 2011 -5- ITEM 33
Meetings:
April 5 and July 7 – Industry representatives
April 22 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
April 27 – Sign owners
May 11 – Two public open houses
July 7 – CityWorks alumni group
July 22 – Planning & Zoning Board work session
August 9 – City Council work session
September 27 – Digital sign demonstration display
September/October – Four meetings with the Chamber of Commerce/Fort Collins Sign Coalition (representatives from
the Chamber, sign industry, and business owners)
November 10 – Planning & Zoning Board work session
November 17 – Planning & Zoning Board public hearing
Web tools:
Your Voice
City’s Facebook page
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session summary, August 9, 2011
2. Sign industry meetings, April 5 and July 7, 2011
3. Chamber of Commerce LLAC meeting, April 22, 2011
4. Sign owners meeting, April 27, 2011
5. Open house meetings, May 11, 2011
6. CityWorks Alum meeting, July 7, 2011
7. Your Voice and Facebook Web Comments
8. Peer City Research Table
9. Portable Sign Placement Area Map
10. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 17, 2011
11. PowerPoint presentation
1
ATTACHMENT 2
Summary minutes of sign industry meeting – April 5, 2011
The group invited to this meeting consisted of licensed Fort Collins sign contractors. Also in
attendance was one business owner who attended this meeting because he will be unable to
attend the April 27th meeting (which is intended for owners of businesses that currently have
digital signs).
Staff presentation given, including PowerPoint slides
Attendees repeatedly asked the following:
Who is complaining? Concerned citizens
How many complaints? The City Manager’s office is often the recipient of emails and phone
calls from the public regarding various issues. We don’t know the exact number.
What is the main concern? Brightness and aesthetics, as well as concern about affect of digital
sign proliferation on streetscape in coming years. To which they responded that the newer signs
erected since the 2006 digital sign code changes are very well done. They also explained that
the dimming software technology is getting better all the time.
Does the community really see this as a problem? We will be conducting a community wide
open house later, and will have internet and facebook outreach as well. Opinions/results from
all meetings and other methods of outreach will be included in information that is given to City
Council for work sessions or public hearings.
Why are we doing this? The City staff was directed to evaluate the effects of this type of sign on
the streetscape as a result of the recent large increase in the number of such signs.
Can't the City make up its mind? Businesses that just spent thousands of dollars on new signs
in order to comply with the 2009 amortization now will have to pay again.
The one business owner in attendance received his invitation letter for the April 27th business
owners meeting over the weekend. He said the letter ruined his weekend and his Monday as
his anger built about the City’s timing (coming shortly after the last amortization period) and the
City once again proposing to do something that he perceives as being anti-business. He owns
a local health club, and explained that his digital sign has proven to be extremely effective.
They survey prospective members when they come in for tours and information, asking “what
brought them in?” He said that 75% of the respondents explained that it was a message on the
digital sign that peaked their interest. He also explained that since he’s had the sign, he has
never put up a banner, and therefore these signs help to reduce the number of banners that are
displayed.
The upcoming meeting schedule is:
April 22nd the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee
April 27th with owners of businesses that have digital signs
May 11th community-wide meeting
2
Summary minutes of 2nd sign industry meeting – July 7, 2011
Discussion:
Overall the group felt we have a good sign code (more restrictive than others, but good.)
They would like to see full color allowed.
With newer technology full-color signs would look like existing back-lit signs (maybe
even better.)
They would prefer a message change every 6 seconds. They realize staff will stay with
a one minute change recommendation (minimum.)
The group felt strongly that they want an opportunity to present to Council beyond 3
minutes each. They feel this important so they can educate and better explain sign
trends and technology. (Staff will check.)
Group discussed dimming software available on sign technology. If the City should
invest in a NIT meter (reads brightness) if they put levels into a code.
Group agreed that the digital boxes set atop existing signs don’t look good.
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Summary minutes of Chamber of Commerce LLAC meeting – April 22, 2011
The meeting was very civil and there was a great deal of input received and concern
expressed. Overall, the audience felt this hurts businesses and is a topic that does not need to
be addressed. One interesting comment came from a sign company who stated that most of
their digital sign clients are Church’s and Schools. The following is a synopsis of the comments:
We should actually go with full color as the monochromatic signs look dated and sub-par and
that the new LCD technology is very attractive.
Digital signs are great for our businesses.
The existing regulations are too restrictive, let’s not change them.
Digital signs help promote community better as they are used for CSU Game Day and other
community events.
Digital signs help prevent banner signage clutter as those who use digital signs do not use as
many banners.
The timing of this is unfortunate as many have recently changed due to recent amortization and
it seems that the city is changing things every 5 years.
Many including David May asked for data on how many concerns we had received. Staff stated
that we did not have a number and he kept pressing for one. I said I would check to see if we
could get this.
One person stated she felt betrayed as a business person as “we just changed” (referencing the
recent amortization). There were a number who echoed this statement.
A number of people compared this effort to the floodplain issue.
A couple of people compared this effort to a “Nanny State” and that the City just a few years ago
went through this process change and that this effort is a waste of their tax dollars.
Again, the meeting was very civil with some spirited comments and an overall concern that this
is not an issue the city should be working on. They reiterated the need for data in terms of how
many concerns have been received and really want this information.
The next step in this process is a meeting with the owners of digital signs on Wednesday April
27 from 4-6 at the community meeting room.
1
ATTACHMENT 4
Summary minutes of Digital Sign Meeting #3 – Sign Owners - April 27, 2011
The digital sign meeting for business owners and managers of businesses that have an
existing digital sign was held on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. 40 people attended.
Like previous outreach meetings, the tone was generally civil but there was a great deal
of input received and concern expressed. Also like the previous meetings, those in
attendance felt that this hurts business and is an issue that should not be pursued
further. An often repeated comment was that they want specific data regarding how
many complaints have been received, the nature of the complaints, and who is it that is
complaining. There was also a comment that the City Manager should meet with them.
Following are other comments:
Signs are already reasonably regulated with regard to aesthetics.
Digital signs are a revenue producer. They allow the business to be reactive to
changing conditions and be product specific.
Digital signs reduce the need for banners, therefore there are fewer banners cluttering
the streetscape.
They allow for individual tenant exposure for multi-tenant buildings by means of easy
message rotation.
Landlords have long-term tenant leases based on use of the digital sign. If the sign
needed to be removed, the tenant could break the lease.
Some buildings are setback a considerable distance and have landscaping that
obscures tenant wall signs. A digital sign with rotating tenant messages helps to
overcome the lack of sign and storefront visibility. Happy tenants mean fewer
vacancies.
The existing regulations as amended in 2006 have resulted in signs that are not
obnoxious. The regulations are already among the most restrictive.
Many of the digital signs aren't any brighter than conventional, illuminated cabinet signs.
It would be a huge expense to change signs.
The City is continually changing the code and the rules of the game. Council amended
the digital sign regs in 2006 and businesses relied on that. Then the 2009 amortization
concluded with numerous businesses replacing their nonconforming signs with
expensive digital signs in reliance on existing regulations. The City can't be trusted if
they keep changing their minds.
The vitality of a city is dependent on commerce.
Rotating tenant messages has been great for Scotch Pines. Their new sign replaced a
previously existing nonconforming sign.
2
The new automatic dimming software should take care of the brightness issue.
Generally, nighttime brightness levels are set at 7% of daytime levels.
Manual changeable copy signs are subject to vandalism. i.e., letters are stolen or letters
rearranged to form obscenities, etc.
It seems like complainers have more say about this than the businesses do.
Sign twirlers are worse than this. Why doesn't the City prohibit them?
Digital signs are safer than manual signs because you don’t have to go in the
snow/wind/rain and make changes.
Some owners still haven't paid off their existing signs that they purchased to meet the
City code.
Tenants have prepaid for certain amounts of display time. What happens to these
agreements?
Digital signs allow convenience stores to have fewer staff (no one has to leave the store
to go outside and change the sign.)
The digital signs are all LED which are far more efficient and sustainable than traditional
lighted signs.
This feels very anti-business.
Pole covers can be expensive (this comment was with regard to proposed design criteria
for pole signs).
Is the City doing this so they can make money from permits and taxes that would be
collected for the new, replacement signs?
The City is nit-picking on signs over and over, and spending money and staff resources.
Landlords will lose tenants if they can't have street exposure.
National corporations have sign requirements for their franchises, and landlords have
been told by prospective tenants that if they can't have certain signage exposure, they
won't come here.
It's not just the businesses that depend on signs, it's also the landlords.
Digital signs replace older, dilapidated signs.
It's a digital world now. Why wouldn't we want businesses to avail themselves of new
technology?
The City is a user of digital signs (on buses, inside the Lincoln Center, at the downtown
transit center, etc). Are they going to be removed?
3
The City of Boulder, CO is going to or already has made allowances for full color as they
think that these full color are better than monochromatic and look more vibrant and
current. (this comment from the audience is being researched by staff)
1
ATTACHMENT 5
Summary minutes of Digital and Pole Sign Meetings, #4 and #5 – General Public
May 11, 2011
Two digital sign meetings for the general public were held on May 11, 2011. The 5:00
p.m. meeting was attended by 6 people. 4 of the six were from the sign industry and
had attended at least one of the previous stakeholder meetings. One of the new
attendees was a sign contractor and the other new attendee was a non-sign industry
person who had not attended any of the previous meetings. No one attended the
second meeting, held at 6:00 p.m..
Following are the comments from the 5:00 p.m. meeting:
Who is complaining about pole signs?
The questions that staff is asking should include a question about what people think is
the economic impact of digital signs, not just the aesthetic impact.
If brightness is a concern, why can’t the code simply be amended to more strictly
regulate ‘dimming’? Are there new technologies?
Proliferation could lead to a loss of a “Mayberry-ish” community feel. On the other
hand, proliferation could add excitement.
Reverse display (i.e. amber background with black message instead of the other way
around) can be ok if brightness is controlled.
There is technology to shade the pixels that will help control brightness.
Can existing signs be retrofitted with this and what would the cost be?
1
ATTACHMENT 6
Summary minutes of CityWork Alum meeting – July 7, 2011
Staff: Pater Barnes, Ginny Sawyer
Attendees: Dan Lenskold, Diane Smith, Scott Quayle, Linda Vrooman, Jerry and Claudia Kiltz, , Jason
Smith, Steve Nelson, Keith and Carol Hopkins, Dana DeRouchey
Staff invited CityWork alums to this meeting after not getting any response at a previously scheduled
public meeting. The email invitation is included at the bottom of the page.
The meeting began with an overview and history of the Fort Collins sign code including photos from the
1970’s to present.
Discussion:
No one wants Las Vegas.
There was lengthy discussion on personal preferences and which signs folks liked best. Overall
people agreed there should not be any animation or flashing and that one minute message sound
like a good minimum. People tried to envision how many potential message changes a driver
might see while at one red light.
Given the current regulations (size, set backs, landscaping, etc) the group felt that full color signs
could be considered.
They felt businesses needed certain capabilities and flexibility in their advertising.
One person had concerns regarding people with seizure disorders and the potential for bright,
rapidly, changing signs to trigger an episode.
They agreed with the stakeholder group that the digital box on top of an existing sign is not very
attractive.
Overall the group was very complementary of where we are at today and our community
aesthetics. They did not voice a need for dramatic changes or additional regulation on digital
signs.
CityWork Invite
Hello CityWork Alum!
The Planning and Zoning Departments are seeking your help and input. Currently, there is policy
discussion regarding the current and future design and desire of digital signs and signage in Fort Collins.
If you’re like me, signs and our sign code are not something I paid much attention to…until I learned
more about the history and thoughts behind the sign code!!
If you look at the before and after pictures of downtown you will see how impactful regulations can be.
Unfortunately, this can be a difficult topic to interest the general public in, which is why we are asking
CItyWork alums to participate in the conversation.
Please join us on Thursday, July 7 from 6:00-7:30 pm in the Community Room. Peter Barnes, Zoning
Supervisor, will take us through some of the history (with visuals!) of the sign code and how it came to
be. We will then seek your thoughts on the near and long-term future of the digital sign code. With new
2
and changing technology signs are becoming more sophisticated and the City wants to ensure it meets
the needs and desires of both businesses and residents.
This is not an Alumni Forum, so food will not be provided (sorry!) but your opinions are highly
appreciated. Please contact Ginny with questions or to RSVP. Thank you!
1
ATTACHMENT 7
Your Voice and Facebook Feedback
1 Comments:
I like the current regulations for both digital displays and for pole signs. They makes sense and must
work as I don't recall being bothered by any signage in town.
I would not like to see these regulations relaxed.
Name: Teresa Kahle
Email: teresa@kahle.org
2 Comments:
The signs are a great way for businesses,churches, and schools, to market themselves. It is a way for
them to advertise programs, and community functions, without the use of unsightly banners. The owners
of these signs have invested a great deal of time and money in these signs, and they were all approved
by the city. All signs that have been approved by the city should remain.
Name: Selena Shannon
Email: skinbyselena@live.com
3 Comments:
Please prohibit digital signs--this is light pollution and is also unattractive. Also, please prohibit the lit bus
stop signs--it is one thing to have the stops lit for safety, another just so the ad shows up. All of this light
pollution makes our city look tacky. It is key to our asethics and economic success to keep our city's
standards high. Thank you for asking.
Name: Trudy Haines
Email: trudyh1@comcast.net
4 Comments:
I favor banning them outright. I travel for work a lot and see many cities that have more and larger digital
signs than Fort Collins. It makes coming back here even better, because I don't have to look at those
digital signs anymore. It's easy to quantify what they add to sales, etc. It's not so easy to quantify what
their absence brings to the city. You really have to stay in a hotel with one of those signs next door,
drawing animations in bright red throughout the night to appreciate how nice it is not to have them.
They're a major distraction when driving also. Perhaps someone has studied their impact, if any, on
traffic accidents. This is a cost passed on to drivers in the city where they're the signs are located.
Name: Ted Rakel
Email: tedrakel@yahoo.com
5 Comments:
The overall benefit to a local business owner having a digital message center is that the business owner
has options to generate revenue by running a "special" or "sale" to attract customers who may not have
known otherwise from looking at just the Business name and logo on a sign. The revenue generated by
this message on the sign also equals sales tax to the city. Do we really want to be that town that limits
local small business owners from possibly generating additional business. The statistics of revenue
generated from a digital message center are if nothing else amazing. The technology available today
allows us to control what message we bring to our customers. Why limit this? Digital signs are some of
the best looking signs this town has. Why don’t we look at some of the old signs in town that are
not maintained, half lit, falling apart and enforce the code in these areas to make our town look better.
This city is great at making up new codes when we do not enforce the codes already in place.
Monument signs are often more expensive then a pole sign so again the business owner is the one to
have to come up with additional money to buy a sign. Should we push all of the business owners to look
elsewhere because of costs and codes for something as simple but as essential as a sign? Before we
become a city of Wal-Mart, let’s look at what is right for everyone.
2
Name: Ian Senesac
Email: affordablesolutionsdj@gmail.com
6 Comments:
I think that the City should stop being anti business and do everything we can to attract new business
and keep existing. Forcing rediculous sign restrictions is not doing this!
Name: Dave
Email: drmccleave@pga.com
7 Comments:
I think they are fine and I'm curious about those that have issues? There should be NO prohibiting these
signs and in fact the City Council should drive to Cheyenne- they have digital billboards that are classy
and great for businesses to advertise on. I'm proud of our city and how it looks and the signage issues
here are not a problem. I'm curiuos if this is once again the 1% of the population complaining about
something they just needed to find to complain about.
Name: Connie Hanrahan
Email: Connie@mantoothcompany.com
8 Comments:
Don't you guys have something better to do than go after businesses that have spent good money on
these signs, How about working on not letting the city of Ft. Collins go bankrupt.
Name: Tim Hunt
Email: thunt@lextron-inc.com
9 Comments:
I like the creativity of the signs. Please DO NOT prohibit them outright. Let's not go backwards. I think
the less regulation the better. I believe the signs' current regulations not have a negative impact on our
city's future. In fact, I don't like the way the digital signs are regulated in thier color limitations, message
changing timees, etc. A city sign code would mean more uniformity and that takes away from the
uniqueness of our city. Let's not bore it up and keep in mind we live in a digital age. We have to assume
the distactions that a sign would cause, would be less distracting than talking or texting on the phone.
Do not babysit the city. Let us be responsible citizens.
Name: Tracy Walker
Email: twalkervols@comcast.net
10 Comments:
Businesses need signs. As long as people have conformed with the zoning rules in place at the time the
sign was installed, they should be allowed to keep the signs and recoup their investments. Digital
messages can be distracting, but also very helpful to both consumers and businesses.
Name: Kevin Houchin
Email: kevin.houchin@houchinlaw.com
11 Comments:
I think the signs are tastfully done. I would like to see this continue as small and medium size
businesses need as much support as we can give them. I do not believe any more regulations should
take place. It is very expensive and difficult to do as it is.
I think if there was an artistic councel of a sort to do a final approval of upcoming signs that would be a
good idea. I think existing signs should stay.
I Hope this helps.
Name: Wendy Foster
Email: wendy@thefineartandframecompany.com
3
12 Comments:
I like the digital signs in fort collins, it is a great way for business owners to change information without
have to build new signs. They absolutely should not be prohibited. I don't know what additional
regualations should be done, since there does not appear to be a problem with them. I think once the
city has approved the sign and the use for the sign, it should not be allowed to go back and change the
rules. Need to get it right the first time. the word "some" does not mean the majority. My family history
goes back to the 1890's here in Fort Collins and I think the signs in Fort Collins has always been great.
It's really all some have right now to promote their business. Really....is there more important things that
time and money could be wasted on?
Name: Cayenne Kerbs
Email: ckerbs@cowisp.net
13 Comments:
Leave it alone!!!!!!!! Let businesses advertise. No more regulations!
Name: Leon Green
Email: hardyclassic@yahoo.com
14 Comments:
Dear City Council,
If the City wants to pick up the tab for replacing all of the new digital signs that local business owners
have installed within the past several years, I'm in favor of the change. However, if the City is asking the
small business owners that have played by the City's rules while installing digital signs to replace the
signs at their own expense, I would not be in favor of this change to the code. Is there any opportunity
for grandfathering the existing digital signs and the change to the code to apply only to "new" signs being
installed?
Name: John Hintzman
Email: johnh@mypfsinsurance.com
15 Comments:
Don't you as a council have more important things to consider than a sign code that has worked, with out
further requlation. I'am not sure why this is even on your radar. It is anti business and petty cosidering
the budget problems and the unemployment issues that face the city today.
I would like to know what brought this up in the 1st place,is there actualy a group against digital signs in
Fort Collins? I'am sure if there is they are not business people that need to drive businees to thier door
step to pay salaries and taxes.
Lets move on to the more important issues at hand.
Michael Trinen
PS How do you mis judge the Mason Street operating budget by 400% (really).
PSS Do we need more people dancing on the street corners with signs?
Name: Michael Trinen
Email: michael_trinen@msn.com
16 Comments:
I think guidelines for new signs is a good idea, but businesses shouldn't be penalized for current
approved signage. That wouldn't help Fort Collins' economy.
Name: Nicole
Email: strategicnutr@aol.com
Comments:
4
I believe the digital signs in Fort Collins only add to the visual appeal.of the street. I think that the
regulations already in place do enough to keep Fort Collins the great city that it is. The digital signs are a
great way for business people to market, get their word out, and to make their building look beautiful.
Digital signs require much more up keep than any other type of sign and will therefore require the owners
to maintain there signs. This will help the future aesthetics of Fort Collins rather than a run down sign
that requires no up keep. Allow the digital signs to remain and keep neing built. It only adds to Fort
Collins.
Name: Patrick Soukup
Email: patjsouk@gmail.com
17 Comments:
i think that is unfair to prohibit or regulate digital signs that are already in place.. these sighns cost the
business lots if money..i would say let them keep then or if not, reimberse the companies their money.
Name: david sholl
Email: davidsholl@aol.com
18 Comments:
The current business owners that have signs that were conforming should be allowed to keep them and
any new businesses should follow the new guidelines. I am personally in favor of lower signs that do not
obstruct the view of the buildings. It seems that the pattern of anti-business decisions results in less tax
revenue and then the City asks everyone else for more money. We don't want to look like downtown Las
Vegas but City Council needs to be more pro-business and maybe some of the money that left town will
come back.
Name: Doug Perry
Email: dperrypga@msn.com
19 Comments:
I think that digital signs are aesthetically undesirable. They cannot lend themselves to a "city identity"
that is otherwise being so aggressively pursued through the Art in Public Places program and other
attempts to give our city a pleasing artistic identity.
Furthermore, they offer nothing to differentiate individual businesses from each other. This is only
compounding the already difficult business environment that small businesses face in Ft. Collins.
Aside from time and temp signs (which provide a public service), I would like to see digital signs banned.
Regarding pole signs I have no opinion.
Name: brian oliver
Email: paxtonsigns@gmail.com
20 Comments:
The current sign regulations are already too restrictive. These regulations hurt our community's business
vitality. As a consequence, we suffer a needless loss of sales tax revenues and we continue to drive
many businesses to other communities. With regulations like these it is no wonder that Fort Collins is
perceived as anti business.
Name: Charlie
Email: Flashcc@gmx.com
21 Comments:
I have little problem with the current monument designs. I would like to see (if not in existence) size
limitations as well (50% of a HUGE monument sign is still huge).
Does the dimming regulation cover maximum luminance? If not, it should. White and blue signs can be
very bright at night.
5
I am in favor of restrictions against the use of pole signs.
I am also in favor of restrictions banning street-side digital signs in certain zones (ie. Old Town)
Name: Michael Feinberg
Email: mfeinberg01@msn.com
22 Comments:
I think leaving the sign code as is for the digital signs would have no impact on the community.
Name:
Email:
23 Comments:
I think there are just fine. I like getting info from them.
Can't see any reason to change regulations.
Name: Jay
Email: jgerdes@q.com
24 Comments:
The signs are a wonderful source of information.
They should be allowed as long as they fit inside the regulations of current code
No additional regulations should be added. The existing regulations are too strict as they are. Especially
in this economy.
I think continued use of the signs will help serve the community and visitors. They are not a distraction
from the beauty of our city.
I don't think design criteria should be added to the existing sign code.
Name: Steve Miget
Email: stevemiget@gmail.com
25 Comments:
1. The examples are all quality, attractive signs.
2. Continue to allow.
3. Current regulations are sufficient and allow for quality, attractive signs. Please do not add any
additional regulations, as that only adds unnecessary expense and wastes private funds.
4. Continue use as currently regulated ADDS to the community appearance now and in the future.
5. No. No more regulations or criteria. In the end, this is not truly beneficial to the town as a whole.
These types of measures are superficial and don't add TRUE value to the citizens.
Name: David
Email:
26 Comments:
I think that there are adequate regulations in place, sometimes too much, as in the limitation on allowable
LED colors.
There should not be a ban on these kinds of signs, just the existing limits on size, timing of changes in
the message, etc. There is no impact on community appearance from continuing to allow them.
Name: David Lingle
Email: dlingle@aller-lingle-massey.com
26 Comments:
Digital signs are effective in conveying marketing information to potential clients without creating a
negative asthetic appearance.
6
Information on the importance of signs in regard to business success can be referenced at the Small
Business Administration website. www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/feb03.pdf. This article from the
February 2003 edition of the Small Business Advocate states "Some sign regulations may unduly burden
small businesses, they may need to be revised, first to facilitate small business success, and at the same
time to benefit state and local governments and economies". The article goes on to state that "Many
fledgling small businesses are totally dependent on commercial signage for their customers or retail
sales".
Numerous data sources suggest that digital signs are exponentially more effective than non digital signs
in creating consumer traffic. This typically results in increased sales for the retailer.
Digital message signs are a cost effective marketing tool. The addition of regulations, or outright ban on
digital signs unfairly adds undo hardship to businesses that are trying to compete in these difficult
economic times.
Aesthetically there are considerably more unattractive items in the community than digital signs. In
comparing signs alone, I notice there are many non digital signs that lack cleanliness and curb appeal.
Some of the best appearing signs in the community are digital signs.
Digital signs convey the image that the retailer and the city are progressive in utilizing todays technology
to share information effectively. Is Fort Collins a progressive, small business friendly community?
Let free enterprise thrive. Show existing small businesses that they matter. Show new businesses that
are considering start up in Fort Collins that they are welcome here.
The current regulations already restrict land use and regulate content. Additional regulation is
unnecessary and counterproductive.
Name: Matt Everhart
Email: opocx@hotmail.com
27 Comments:
1. THe blindingly bright glare from signs like this (at night) are VERY dangerous for drivers and
pedestrians (possibly obscure drivers' vision with the glare and keep them from seeing pedestrians and
cyclists).
2. Regulation is all that's needed. Control the type of sign to avoid the super bright glare.
3. Require business to comply with safer signs with a reasonable time period, for existing LED and
digital signs.
4. These obnoxious signs are NOT in keeping with the image and esthetics of Fort Collins. Leave signs
like this in Vegas.
5. I am not opposed to pole signs. In fact, in some locations, a pole sign makes the business actually
visible to drivers BEFORE they are right in front of it.
Name: Kathleen Hollerbach
Email: khollerbach@gmail.com
28 Comments:
I like them and I wish we had more of them. The regulations should be relaxed to encourage more of
them.
Name: Aaron Harris
Email: aaron.g.harris@gmail.com
29 Comments:
Understand if modifications are needed to the code but unreasonable to eliminate signs altogether since
so many buisnesses have spent alot of money on them. Shutting them down is not an option.
Grandfather existing signs in and do regulate there after.
7
Name: Ken
Email: kforzley@comcast.net
30 Comments:
I think the current regulations are appropriate. The only kind of digital screens that I don't like are the
ones that glare brightly at night like the on in front of the Budweiser Event Center. Also on a another note
you guys have Cafe Vino's sign listed twice one saying is complies and the other saying it doesn't.
Unless you're informing that white letters w/blue background are ok and multi colors are not.
Name: Steven
Email: wild_life35@yahoo.com
31 Comments:
The regulations seem fine to me. I like the fact that the signs do change and give me info I can use. A lot
of the businesses use them to show their daily specials. In a time when saving every penny counts I am
confused as to why the city would want to take that away. I'm sure these signs help the businesses do
more in sales so I am also confused as to why the city would do anything to reduce the potential sales
tax being collected. Again in a time when every penny counts why is the city wasting time on this subject.
I would bet there are much more productive things that could be done with the time.
Name: John Rush
Email: johnrush1@me.com
32 Comments:
Digital signs are part of a modern society. I am not not sure what someone find offensive about them but
it will be very hard on businesses who have invested in this technology to ban it now. It would be my
guess that if asked most of the citizens of Fort Collins are fine with the current law. Please stand up to a
vocal few and continue to allow a harmless modern product to work for local business.
Name: Jack Fetig
Email: Jack@fossilcreeknursery.com
33 Comments:
I like most of the digital signs I see around the city. I don't see the issue with multiple colors per sign. No
additional regulations should be added. If anything, they should be relaxed. I think the current regulations
are too restrictive. I don't see the issue with limiting the number of colors as long as the sign is readable
(granted, red done wrong is illegible). The Fossil Creek Nursery Sign was a waste of money because it's
not readable, but if that was done properly, what is wrong with that? In the grand scheme of things, the
continued use of digital signs has no impact on community appearance.
Name: Jim Malone
Email: jajmalone@comcast.net
34 Comments:
Yes, we should continue to allow regulated digital signs. I feel the current regulations are adequate (for
the time being.) I don't think continued use of digital signs would detract from our city. As for "design
criteria for pole signs", design criteria that addresses safety is certainly reasonable. Other "criteria"
would need to be considered on an individual basis.
Name: Lynn Courtney
Email: lynnccs@gmail.com
35 Comments:
Why is this even a queston?
There is nothing wrong with them as they are.
I abhorr city employee time consumed by trivial things like this.
Some people will not be happy no matter what you do. They have too much time and money on their
hands.
8
If you want businesses to locate here and provide good paying jobs (rather than the focus of minimum
wage jobs that seems to be prevelant), quit making it difficult for businesses to exist. It is ultimately from
them that the City receives money to function.
If anything, the sign code needs to be less restrictive. It is difficult to find businesses under the existing
regulations. Signs too small and bland to be seen. One color signs in a strip making the signs ineffectual.
Increase money to the City coffers by being a friend to business to create a healthy business
environment, and stop acting as an adversary.
Name: Curtis Shepherd
Email: shepcr3@q.com
36 Comments:
1. They are too bright, waste electricity and lack character.
2. Make them smaller or non-existant.
3. Yes, more restrictive regulations.
4. They do not have a genuine feel and thus do not add to the beauty of FC.
5. Yes.
Thank you!
Name: David Bernoudy
Email: sbernoudy@openapproach.com
37 Comments:
By and large, I think the COFC has done a good job with getting the sign code to where it is. I think the
existing digital/LED signs are very acceptable and I do not believe there should be any further changes
or requirements. I don't think we need any further changes in the sign code, as they have become as
neutral as I would care to see them. The intent of a sign is to give directions, and/or to advertise. They
are there for a reason.
Name: John Howe
Email: johnhowe@schraderoil.com
38 Comments:
I think they are distracting and unattractive.
Continue current regulations
No more allowances
Current use is not a plus for community appearance
Yes. Only low monument signs should be allowed.
Name: Anne Messner
Email: ampwray2@msn.com
39
Comments:
I really like the larger Digital Information signs. As an example, the one set up on Horsetooth Road east
of college avenue gives the driver ample time to change lanes before having to stop at the sign itself and
impeding traffic due to a blocked lane. And the larger lane arrows really help me a lot too. I am in favor of
the larger Digital Traffic Signs.
Name: Ron Vail
Email: rgv1947@gmail.com
40 Comments:
City of Fort Collins staff and Council members,
9
Digital signs provide a great service to the City of Fort Collins residents. Gas prices, time and
temperature, City bus schedules, retail advertising, church meeting times, and important information for
schools,such as times for PTO meetings. High School scoreboards for football, soccer and other sports
are some of the biggest users of this technology, not to mention Hughes Stadium and Moby Gym .
Interior uses are numerous as well, the Lincoln Center, movie theatres, and other uses provide real time
up to date messages.
The restrictions on digital signs are many already, only 50% of the entire display maximum, regulated to
color other than red, dimming software reduces the brightness at night. Height and setback are also very
regulated .
Most other cities, including Boulder, Colorado Springs, Loveland, Thornton and Greeley have or are in
the process of decreasing the regulation for this type of sign, not increasing the regulations.
Organizations who use these type of signs provide valuable real time information, many of these signs
are much more attractive than the mechanical readerboard style.
The use of digital signs decreases the need for banners which can be very unsightly to the eye.
In addition, the city just reworked the sign code very recently and any change in this area will put an
additional heavy burden on businesses or organizations who recently purchased these.
Sincerely,
John J. Shaw - President
DaVinci Sign Systems, Inc
Name: John J. Shaw
Email: john@davincisign.com
41 Comments:
I find digital signs around town to be very appropriate, generally well maintained and informative. If
anything, it would seem the City has made much ado about nothing in regard to its sign codes. While I
am not a business owner or have any connections to any business that does have a sign, I do take great
interest in supporting small business. Large and multinational corporations are able to overcompensate
for restrictive codes such as those our City has adopted, while it seems independents find it increasingly
difficult match those resources while also battling bureaucrats with little or no appreciation for the
challenges of making our community unique.
Rather than imposing more arbitrary constraints with minimal impact to our quality of life, let's embrace a
more business-friendly atmosphere by relaxing the sign code.
Name: Joe Rowan
Email: olelauren@comcast.net
42 Comments:
As an owner of Whistle Clean Car Wash and having paid $27,000. for our digital sign which conforms to
your sign code and for which we are highly dependent;I want to vehemently oppose any further
restrictions on the use of digital signs. We also use the sign for public service announcements for non
profits. It is really our primary method of communicating with our market. We are already suffering
financially and can't take another hit.
Paul Heffron
Name: J. Paul Heffron
Email: jpheffron@comcast.net
43 Comments:
10
I am not a fan of digital signs but we have current regulations, and if people are in compliance, the signs
should be considered acceptable.
I believe that there are more pressing issues that the city should be focusing on. Live with the current
guidelines, don't waste time or money with the issue.
Name: Cathy Norman
Email: rcnorman11@gmail.com
44 Comments:
1. Digital signs that include advanced animations and are basically large television screens are extremely
distracting to drivers and dangerous to everyone else. Signs that use a wide range of colors and change
in rapid succession can also cause problems for viewers. I think the majority of digital signs are
respectfully built, but the ones that aren't create a serious issue.
2. I think digital signage can provide a great value to business and an extra level of convenience to
potential customers. These signs should be allowed and strictly regulated.
3. I think as advanced building technologies for signs develop there will have to be additional regulations
on how they are used. For example, if there is no regulation for active 3D signs, how long will viewers
have to watch products and taglines jump at them before it is regulated properly. How far out of 3D signs
should objects be able to appear to protrude? Currently I think an additional regulation to digital signs
could be a rule addressing proximity to the business it represents. If business are using digital signage to
convey an immediate and changing message to customers, I believe they should have to do it with some
close proximity to their business.
4. I think imposing a specific set of regulations will have a positive impact on community appearance.
Simply by keeping consumers, drivers and pedestrians from being distracted, unpleasantly surprised, or
confused by new signage.
5. I believe that if pole criteria were implemented it would be more difficult for businesses to create
outdoor signage simply in terms of affordability. I also think current pole signs should be grandfathered in
to any against any new regulations.
Name: Chris Lenfert
Email: chris@lenfertdesign.com
45 Comments:
I like the digital signs just as the rules allow at this time. They allow for smaller sign area but still reach
our customers. It is imperative that sign code recognizes we are in business to attract customers. I still
would be interested in who and how many complaints were received regarding LED signs. From our
perspective, we have continued to be caused to reduce our sign advertising area through the years. I do
not support additional sign restrictions beyond current code, not in any fashion. Let's leave the code
alone. Every time the code is changed, it costs we the taxpayers and businesses more money that we
then cannot use to promote our businesses and thus, afford to pay taxes.
Name: Steve Schrader
Email: socsjs@aol.com
46 Comments:
Regarding the use of digital signs in Fort Collins, I feel that there is already an adequate and sufficient
sign code currently in place with the Land Use Code and further regulation is not needed and would only
be a waste of time for our limited city staff resources and tax payer dollars. I am an architect and have
designed several projects within the city and feel that I have a good understanding of the current
standards that are in place. I personally feel that existing digital signs have no relevant impact on the
community appearance.
Name: Ian Shuff, AIA, LEED AP
11
Email: ianshuff@gmail.com
47 Comments:
I like that it can give instant information; change in gas price, temp, time, etc. I dislike the signs that are
associated with FAST FOOD!
I'm ok with regulated signs
I like the current regulations. No scrolling, flashing, bright colors, it's just tacky that way!
I think they have little impact. The current regulations, must continue to be enforced!
NO POLE SIGNS!!!! They are gross, tacky, and cheesy looking! Don't let FTC go down that road,
please!
Name: Jayne
Email: jaynemohar@gmail.com
48 Comments:
I don't mind the digital signs as long as they are small, and NOT RED. Good call. Whatever genius(es)
came up with the idea of no animation desserves credit. Actually, I think all the current regulations are
appropriate, so I don't really mind the signs I see now. And I, too, prefer monument signs.
Name: Anne Berry
Email: aberry1973@gmail.com
49 Comments:
I think digital signs are fine the way they are and should be allowed per current sign code.
Name:
Email:
50 Comments:
They are annoying and distracting. There is nothing I like about them.
Get rid of them.
Appearance - ugly.
#5 - stop being stupid - design criteria - they are poles - leave them alone.
Name: K Neith
Email: kan47@mywdo.com
51 Comments:
1) I have not dislikes about the current digital signs in Fort Collins, I like most of them. Of those I don't
like, my dislike is for the permanent part of the sign, not the digital part.
2)Fort Collins SHOULD allow digital signs and continue to regulate them.
3)NO additional regulation is needed.
4) I think the continued use of digital signs adds to the community appearance. Current signs are
tasteful and the digital sign is a good and progressive manner to deliver information to the public.
5)No additional criteria should be added to the Sign Code.
Name: Mike Brown
Email: mikeabrown@q.com
52 Comments:
12
Why do we have signs? Marketing and advertising or addressing and location? The job of the
government is to protect and serve the people. From this point of view many signage issue can be
brought into prospective.
Marketing and advertising distracts drivers and should be minimized. Digital signs that overly animated,
bright, colorful should be limited.
I think signs should be for addressing and location. Street number should be required and on-par with
largest font on the sign. Should contain business name and/or logo.
For saftey, signs should not be within 0-12' above street/ground level. Blocks view for
cars/bikes/pedestrians. Single-plane monument signs provide a place for criminals to hide and jump out.
V-shaped monuments with angle to street of 30-60 degrees 45 nominal. Low sign also subject to
vandalism and damage from landscaping. However, low signs don't need cherry picker to change.
Using digital technology to display today's price or lunch special are good. I might stop by for a 2:1
special instead of waiting until I get home.
One color makes a sign useless. I think you mean two colors, one foreground color and one background
color. Is that at one time. Can a sign's foreground be green this minute and blue the next minute?
Why restrict red? Seems like the most popular color and a ploy to get rid of signs. If you are going to
restrict colors, restrict any color that is used by construction or emergency vehicle/signs.
Should also apply to the city -- no more multi-color flashing "your speed is" signs. I've heard teens like to
"play" with this signs.
How much power do digital signs use? Where is the cost/environment trade-off?
What about signs in store windows that are visible from the street?
In general, I think some digital signs are good, others are bad, but the difference is so subjective that any
law would be too harsh or too lenient. So let's error on the side of freedom, not Nazism. Maybe allow
the petition process to be used to deem a sign a public nuisance and allow one year for the nuisance to
be resolved.
Name: Michael Pruznick
Email: mikepruz@comcast.net
53 Comments:
Based on my experience of having recently relocated here from Colorado Springs, I find the signage in
Fort Collins to be well regulated and tasteful. As I understand it, Colorado Springs is in the process of
moving toward more attractive digital signage similar to that typical in Fort Collins. When I attended the
first meeting regarding this issue, there were several very logical reasons enumerated as to why there
should not be any additional changes to the sign codes, including; cost, negative impact on current
landlords and their tenant/lease contracts, relatively recent 2006 update to the sign code (which many
businesses are still experiencing expenses related to those changes) and the challenging business
environment currently facing our business citizens.
The unknown proponent for possible change, "Some in the community" needs to be better defined and
identified to see if that represents enough constituents to require signficant City resources to be utilized
to research and "address" this issue.
I certainly think the City has more important priorities and needs to be cognizant of the possibility of
being perceived as "unfriendly" to small business. Given the economic times, we need to be promoting
13
job growth and commerce while balancing quality of life and our environment. Based on what I see in
the City, the current sign code achieves those goals.
Name: Doug Woods
Email: dwoods@cwnbank.com
54 Comments:
you have withheld the most important question - cost impact on the taxpayer - how many additional city
emplyees will end up on the payroll as a result?
Name: taxpayer
Email: taxpayer@gmail.com
54 Comments:
I feel the digital signs have added a positive, creative, informational, Community awareness programs
and a professional touch to our city streets. As these companies are rewarded with higher customer
volume ...dosent that mean the city could financially benefit as well?
Upon purchasing these signs we have to meet sign codes, guidelines for placement, use only specific
colors, as well as the overall timed verbage/content of the sign as well as your approval. The regulations
that will take effect in 2013...majority of the new digital signs recently placed are following the 2013
regulations already with minimal to no complaints.
Why is brining our city up to date in technology so wrong? We cannot continue to strive in this
Community by not being able to modernize!! Technology is constantly changing as is our
Community...Fort Collis is a fast paced, young innovative College Community...Isn't growth a good thing
for the expansion and future of Fort Collins?
No one has been able to verbalize who is objecting to a more modern professional look to our city
streets...why is that? Are we protecting a specific group or person of affulence in this town? These signs
are not cheap, as a company makes the decision to have a digital sign installed we have to consider
many different aspects...One that we certainly did not ever consider was the possiblility of losing the
$$$$$ on our investment.
In the event you "decide" to have these signs removed, some of the smaller business groups could
potentially have a loss so great that it could put them out of business....over a SIGN! Now thats criminal!
Name:
Email: wilsonl@turningpnt.org
55 Comments:
It is ridiculous to have so many rules. You nickel and dime small businesses to death by demanding all
these specifications. All these regulations do is encourage the obnoxious, hazardous, and annoying
people standing on street corners like hobos with big advertisement boards for businesses that can't
afford to put the right color sign up on their property. Just let businesses advertise with stationary signs
so a bunch of meth addicts are no longer littering our street corners dancing and dangerously waving
signs in your face. It is so ugly and distracting, I hate driving to work in this town because I know I'll
always be harassed by some weirdo shaking their butt at me to advertise something I wish I could have
just read about on a red sign flashing at me every 25 seconds, at least it wouldn't risk stepping off the
sidewalk in front of my car. I’ve lived in cities all over America and the stupid rules about signs
this city has are inconvenient for businesses and consumers and ensure only that Fort Collins will always
show its true colors as a backwater cow town. Couldn’t we just bring this city into the 21st
century so we can make a name in northern Colorado as a sophisticated city? At this point Loveland has
better commerce and places to shop than Fort Collins, maybe it is time to realize that the city’s
stupid rules have something to do with the fact that we could be as fun as a city like Austin but never will
be because we deny progress and change at every turn.
Name: Daisy Miller
Email: ddaisymiller@gmail.com
56 Comments:
14
When you say "Some in the community have expressed comcern about digital display boards" I guess I
would like to know more about the sum of some. "Some" doesn't register as a substantial number with
me in a population of 140,000. The digital signs in Fort Collins are antiquated compared to the TV signs
lined up along I-25. I have a $30,000 investment in the digital sign at Richie's and to make us change
colors is hard enough. Now you want imput on whether they should be banned altogether? Does the
public really understand what it takes to stay in business these days? We have to be able to expose our
businesses to the public if we are to succeed.
Richie Frank
Richie's Express Carwash
57 Comments:
1) I like the use of electronic digital signs in Fort Collins. It makes the city business friendly and makes it
feel like the city is alive with activity.
2) Yes, the city should continue to allow for digital signs.
3) The sign regulations should be loosened to allow for full color LED signs.
4) Continued use of digital signs would benefit Ft Collins and the community.
5) I don't think we need to add additional design criteria for pole signs.
I would like to see the sign regulations loosened to allow more than 4 colors. The technology with
electronic signs keeps advancing and you can now get full color electronic signs for about the same price
as monochrome signs. I would like the standard loosened so that full color is allowed. We own a full
color sign, but are only allowed to use amber, green, blue, or white color. Why only these colors? It's like
having a color TV, but only being able to have one color displayed at a time. Full color would allow
companies to display their company logo or other graphics that contain other colors besides these 4. I
would like to display the colors of the US Flag on our sign on the 4th of July, but can't, because it is more
than one color and has red in it. It seems like the code was written at a time when there were only
monochrome electronic signs available. The resolution on full colored signs are also getting a lot better.
Let's get the code updated to accept the current sign technology that is available to businesses.
In regards to the brightness of the signs at night. If the city sees a sign that is too bright, they can notify
the owner to make sure their sign's dimming function is working. Current electronic signs all have
dimming software that can be easily adjusted if they are too bright.
Name: Greg Richard
Email: gregrichard@summitview.com
58 Comments:
Digital signs should be prohibited outright because they are a dangerous distraction to drivers. They are
also unsightly.
Name: Tim Sagen
Email: tsagen@juno.com
59 Comments:
I think the city code for digital signs is just fine the way it is. I think there should be more time spent on
looking at all the trees that are blocking street signs and causing traffic hazards. There are also a lot of
street corners that are blocked because of trees and shrubs and you have to pull out into the street
before you can see if it is safe to pull out onto the street.
Name: Leo Braun
Email: lbman22000@yahoo.com
60 Comments:
15
Simple, one or two lines are OK but large multi line, signs are too attractive to the eye and therefore
dangerous distractions for drivers. Large bill board type signs, with changing messages are extremely
dangerous and should be banned. Keep driver distraction down, it's bad enough with cell phones.
Name: Doug Moench
Email: effrider@frii.com
61 Comments:
Just passing by and I saw the current issues.. Why the hell are we wasting money on these too lame to
be a joke issues? Raising issues about SIGNS? Of all the tiny things that don't matter... What's next, the
font on signs? Do people forget that this is America and it's not our jobs to try to control every persons
tiny action? Seriously, people are trying to control the style of SIGNS put up by others???
How about you do something about all the homeless in old town? Or maybe get rid of that annoying turn
arrow to get to petsmart? Perhaps repeal that impossible "don't get within x amount of feet of a bike rider,
even though the lanes aren't even X wide!" Perhaps repaint that dangerous pinch of a bike lane north on
shields right past drake.. Or better yet, cut back on waste by cutting votes and discussions ABOUT
SIGNS.
This is the stupidest government issue I've seen in my life. I can see all the meeting at town hall wasted
on this. The web designers paid to add this to the site. The people paid to read these emails and the
costs of future ballots. /sigh
Name:
Email:
62 Comments:
The digital parts of the signs are great- the pole-style signs, however, are unattractive and remind me of
nearly abandoned mid-kansas towns from years past.
Digital signs are a thing of the future, and are still more attractive than the manually changed "letter
signs" (for lack of a better term.) Pole signs should be required to be shorter, to avoid "height wars" and
should be required to be closer to the buildings they advertise.
Name: Shaun Salyards
Email: shaun.salyards@gmail.com
63 Comments:
It was great to see in the Coloradoan today, a huge artical about the PRO SIGN SHAKER!!! If the City
manager is so concerned with digital signs, where does he stand on the Sign shakers at every corner.
Darren saw a sign at the corner of harmony & boardwalk and he didn't like it so now he wants them all
gone! And he is telling us the community is concerned, LIE!If the community is sooooo concerned, why
were there only 3 citizens at the community meeting regarding these terrible signs that are such a
detriment to our safty and community. REALLY!!Once again our city government hard at work! How
much time each day does our city mamagement sit around trying to figure out new ways to suppress
local businesses. Fort Collins is the only town on the front range considering this ban, this is the biggest
waste on time, why don't you guys spent more time attempting to get the expense numbers on the
Mason Sreet Corridor even close to realistic! $500,000 for the buses, OOPS, sorry it's really $2,500,000
dollars, laughable!! Keep up the good work, hopefully Darrin will continue to recieve those 8% raises
every year,and hire all his buddies, while the hard working, tax paying business owners in this town
continue to get the shaft!
Name: Todd Heenan
Email: todd@ftcclub.net
64 Comments:
I like the digital signs in our area. They are much more attractive than the ones that use individual letters
to change their message. I love the ones on I-25 around the outlet malls.
YES YES YES - Do not prohibit them outright they are a great resource of information for the consumer
and the retailer.
16
NO - we over-regulate as it is.
Our sign code detracts the potential these signs have...it's a great example of having multiple tools but
only using one or two out of the group. Let the merchants/owners use these signs as they were
intended. The older signs that are in compliance are not attractive. At least digital signage can be
altered and changed with the message being delivered, tenancy of the property and event seasons. It's
a benefit to have that option. I do not see anything ugly or unsafe about the digital signs. They do not
distract me from driving.
If the city is going to regulate the number of trees and whether or not a merchant can trim the trees then
we also need to allow for the building owner the potential to increase the sign height so that the sign can
be viewed.
Name: Joan Chase
Email: joan@realtec.com
65 Comments:
1. I like the digital signs becuase they provide quick and up-to-date information such as time and temp or
informs me of a business that I previously may have been unaware of.
2. Continue to allow
3. I think the current regulations seem all encompassing and do not see the need for additional
regulation.
4. The use of these signs (as currently regulated) is a benefit to the community and the businesses of
this community.
5. There already is criteria for pole signs (no more than 18 ft. etc. and gross area). I'm not sure the
wording of the question is completely fair.
Thanks for providing this place for residents to express their opinions.
Name: Nate Heckel
Email: nheckel@realtec.com
66. Comments:
1. Current signs are fine and likely over-regulated.
2. Continue to allow for digital signs.
3. NONE
4. No impact upon community appearance now and in the future.
5. NO.
Name: Bob Vomaske
Email: bob.vomaske@vistasolutions.net
67. Comments:
Busineses are under enough pressure without having to deal with another change in regulations that
might increase their overhead. I think the current code is adequate and do not see a reson for a change
at this time.
Name: Mark Bradley
Email:
68. Comments:
I like the information found on digital signs.
They are flexible and not a distraction. I think we have enough regulations around them. They are nuetral
in impact to the community appearance in my opinion.
I don't see any new for new pole sign regulations.
Name: Peter Kast
Email: pkast@realtec.com
69. Comments:
17
Houska Automotive has had a digital sign for 2 years. Over the past two years we have been able to
inform passersby the time and temp, services we perform and upcoming community events. It has also
been a way for us to show what affiliations we have such as AAA and ASE, which some consumers are
interested in when getting their vehicle repaired. In the past year Houska Automotive has become a
Goodyear, Michelin and BF Goodrich Tire dealer. By using our digital sign to promote tires, we have
increased our tire sales over 3 times what they were before the sign. Houska Automotive and the
Houska Family are big supporters of giving back to the community. This sign has help promote our
different events, such as the Houska Houska 5k race. The race alone has raised almost $54,000 over
the past two years to support the bone marrow registry and PV Cancer Center. We also had over 110
people get on the bone marrow registry since our sign was installed, which actually saves lives. Other
events Houska Automotive promotes are the Halloween blood drive and two free women’s car care
clinics. For both events the main advertising is our digital sign.
If the rules are changed for these digital signs the impact would not be isolated to the cost we had to pay
for the sign to be built and installed but also the revenue lost from promoting our products and services.
Also the community would lose if we cannot advertise our charity events. With less awareness we raise
less money which directly benefits the residents of our community.
Name: LJ Houska
Email: lj@houskaautomotive.com
70. Comments:
I think our current sign code, in regards to digital signs should be left alone. Several businesses that I
have talked to really benefit from the advertising on their signs, which in turn increases the sales tax they
pay to the City. The are appropriately regulated now and I feel further restrictions or prohibiting them all
together does not demonstrate a business-friendly community.
I don't feel that the digital signs, as they are currently, are distracting. The corner sign wavers however
are.
My guess is that monument signs tend to be much more expensive than pole signs. We can't force
every business into the most expensive methods of promoting their business. We need to keep some
choices in the ordinance.
Name: Jackie O'Hara
Email: jackie@jetmarketing.net
ATTACHMENT 8
City Allowed? % of Sign Face
Animation, Blinking,
Flashing, Scrolling
Dimming
Software
Color Regulation Frequency of Change
Any Study or
Potential Changes?
Other
Ann Arbor, MI Yes; gas signs only. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Admitted need for sign code overhaul, but it is very low priority.
Arvada, CO
Yes; not allowed in Olde
Town
Depends of pixel spacing. For signs using more
than 25mm pixel spacing, 33%. Between 20‐25
mm spacing, 66%. 20mm pixel spacing or less,
100%
No ‐ changes only
allowed through
dissolve or fade
transitions not to
exceed 1 second
Yes No 8 seconds No
Updated June 14, 2011. Lighting can not exceed 600 nits (candelas per square meter)
between sunset and sunrise; can not exceed 5,000 nits between sunrise and sunset.
Berkeley, CA
Yes; except if located
across from residential
zone
No more than 8 sq ft No No
No ‐ try to avoid
red
60 seconds No 2009 updated overall sign code, but didn't change electric portion.
Boulder, CO Yes
Subject to same area limitations as other non‐
electronic signs
No No No 60 seconds No
Some citizens have complained about EMC's, that they're obnoxious, but there are no
changes planned.
Colorado Springs,
CO
Yes No more than 5 characters No No No
24 hours for text on gas
signs; time, temp. and
date are excluded.
Yes
Currently re‐writing sign code, anticipated completion by end of 2011. The City is being
pressured from sign companies and businesses wanting to embrace the new technology, and
their new code will likey allow and further regulate digital signs.
Eugene, OR
Yes; public agencies are
exempt
3 sq feet in area, nothing more than 5
characters
No No No 3 seconds No Have chosen to leave the signs prohibitive because of the complexity involved in regulating.
Fort Collins, CO Yes 50% No Yes
Yes; blue, green,
amber, white,
monochrome
ATTACHMENT 10
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
1
1
Proposed Digital Sign and
Pole Sign Regulations
December 6, 2012
Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor
Steve Dush, CDNS Director
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator
2
South College, south of Prospect, circa 1975
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
2
3
South College, south of Prospect, 1978
4
South College, south
of Prospect, circa 1975
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
3
5
South College, south of Prospect, 1978
6
100 Block of North College,
circa 1975
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
4
7
100 Block of North College, 1978
8
Issue: Adequacy of existing digital sign
regulations now and into the future
• In 2006, Council adopted standards to regulate
the use and appearance of digital signs.
• Since 2006, the number of digital signs has
increased significantly and the number continues
to increase.
• Sign regulations need to balance the needs of
businesses with the public right to an
aesthetically pleasing environment.
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
5
9
Digital Sign Regulations
Adopted in 2006
• No flashing, moving, blinking, or animation.
• Frequency of message change limited to 60 sec.
• Automatic dimming software for nighttime
viewing.
• Monochrome message in amber, green, blue or
white.
• Digital area limited to maximum of 50% of sign
face.
• Pre-2006 digital signs must comply by 2013.
10
Conforming Signs
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
6
11
Conforming Signs
12
Conforming Signs
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
7
13
Non-Conforming Signs (red lettering not allowed)
14
Non-Conforming Signs
(full color display not allowed)
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
8
15
Without Digital
With Digital
16
Key elements of recommended
changes
• establishment of very specific brightness levels that
are measurable and enforceable,
• allowing the use of red as a permitted color in
monochrome message displays,
• continuing the ban on full-color displays,
• establishment of design criteria,
• requiring that new displays have a maximum pixel
spacing of 16 mm with an exception for 19 mm.
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
9
17
Key elements continued
• prohibiting digital signs on the walls of buildings in
certain areas of the downtown,
• limiting the number of future digital signs allowed
per property,
• regulating digital signs inside a building when
visible from the street or sidewalk, and
• establishing dates by which nonconforming signs
must be brought into compliance.
18
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
10
19
20
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
11
21
Pole Signs - Background
• Pole signs constructed with the sign cabinet mounted
on top of only one or two exposed poles are viewed as
being less attractive.
• The sign code has always contained regulations
intended to encourage the use of monument signs
instead of pole signs.
• Opportunities to increase the number of more
aesthetically pleasing signs in the city through 2009
replacement didn’t materialize.
22
Proposed Pole Sign Regulations
• Add design criteria to enhance appearance of
pole signs.
• Freestanding pole signs will be limited to
containing no more than 40% of air space.
• Existing signs made nonconforming need to
come into compliance by 2019.
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
12
23
Typical Monument Sign
24
Typical Monument Sign
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
13
25
Non-Conforming Under Proposed Change
26
Non-Conforming Under Proposed Change
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
14
27
Conforming Signs with Proposed Change
28
Signs Conforming with Proposed Change
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
15
29
Existing = 35% Possible at 40% Allowed now,
but not in future
30
Existing Possible at 40% Possible at 30%
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
16
31
Existing Possible at 40% Possible at 30%
32
Existing Possible at 40% Possible at 30%
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
17
33
Allowed now Possible at 40% Possible at 30%
34
Existing 20% Possible 40% Originally 50%
Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 11
18
35
Sign Outreach
Meetings:
April 5 and July 7 – Industry representatives
April 22 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
April 27 – Sign owners
May 11 – Two public open houses
July 7 – CityWorks alumni group
July 22 – Planning & Zoning Board work session
August 9 – City Council work session
September 27 – Digital sign demonstration display
September/October – Four meetings with the Chamber of
Commerce/Fort Collins Sign Coalition
Web tools:
-Your Voice
- City’s Facebook page
ORDINANCE NO. 178, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE
REGARDING DIGITAL SIGNS AND POLE SIGNS
WHEREAS, commencing in 1971 and continuing thereafter, the City Council has adopted
various provisions regulating the size and appearance of signs within the City all of which
regulations were designed and adopted in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City
by regulating the design, construction and placement of signs in a manner that provides a reasonable
balance between the right of a business and/or individual to identify itself and to convey its message,
and the right of the public to an aesthetically pleasing environment; and
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City Council adopted Code provisions further regulating the use
and appearance of on-premise digital signs which regulations controlled brightness, color, size and
method of display; and
WHEREAS, since 2006, the number of on-premise digital signs has increased significantly
and, in response to this increase, and to concerns about brightness and aesthetics, the City Council
directed City staff to evaluate the possibility of further regulation of digital signs to protect the
economic and aesthetic environment of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also requested that City staff present a proposal for
additional design criteria for pole signs for the purpose of limiting the amount of air space between
the top of the sign and the ground to make the signs more substantial and aesthetically interesting
with a view toward enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the streetscapes of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared new regulations for the City Council to consider
regarding digital signs and pole signs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has examined the regulations proposed by City
staff and has recommended that the City Council adopt said regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the regulations proposed
by City staff with regard to digital signs and pole signs are in the best interests of the health, safety
and welfare of the City and should be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 3.8.7(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (12) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(G) Freestanding and Ground Sign Requirements
. . .
(12) Freestanding signs (pole signs) shall contain no more than forty (40) percent free air
space between the top of the sign and the ground, vertically, and between the
extreme horizontal limits of the sign extended perpendicular to the ground. A base
or pole cover provided to satisfy this requirement shall be integrally designed as part
of the sign by use of such things as color, material, and texture. Freestanding signs
that existed prior to December 30, 2011 and that do not comply with this regulation
shall be removed or brought into compliance as required by Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(b)
of this Land Use Code, except that the fifteen (15) year period contained in said
Section shall be changed to eight (8) years.
Section 2. That Section 3.8.7(M) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 3.8.7 Signs
(M) Electrical Signs and electronic message center signs.
(1) Flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects shall be prohibited on
all signs, except time-and-temperature signs.
(2) Illuminated signs shall avoid the concentration of illumination. The intensity of the
light source shall not produce glare, the effect of which constitutes a traffic hazard
or is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
(3) Every electric sign shall have affixed thereon an approved Underwriters'
Laboratories label, and all wiring connected to such sign shall comply with all
provisions of the National Electrical Code, as adopted by the city.
(4) Electrical sSigns that contain an electronic message center changeable copy shall
be subject to the following limitations.
(a) The electronic message center must be programmed so that the displayed
message does not change more frequently than once per minute and so that
the message change from one static display to another occurs instantaneously
without the use of scrolling, flashing, fading or other similar effects. The
message or image displayed must be complete in itself without continuation
in content to the next message. Electronic message centers that display
ONLY time and temperature do not need to comply with the above-described
time limitations, but shall not change more frequently than once per three
seconds.
(b) The electronic message center must be provided with automatic dimming
software or solar sensors to control brightness for nighttime viewing and
variations in ambient light. Lighting from the message center shall not
exceed three tenths (.3) foot candles over the ambient light as measured
using a foot candle meter at the following distances from the face of the
message center: thirty-two (32) feet for a sign face greater than zero (0)
square feet and not more than ten (10) square feet per side; thirty-nine (39)
feet for a sign face greater than ten (10) square feet and not more than fifteen
(15) square feet per side; forty-five (45) feet for a sign face greater than
-2-
fifteen (15) square feet and not more than twenty (20) square feet per side;
fifty (50) feet for a sign face greater than twenty (20) square feet and not
more than twenty-five (25) square feet per side; fifty-five (55) feet for a sign
face greater than twenty-five (25) square feet and not more than thirty (30)
square feet per side; fifty-nine (59) feet for a sign face greater than thirty (30)
square feet and not more than thirty-five (35) square feet per side; sixty-three
(63) feet for a sign face greater than thirty-five (35) square feet and not more
than forty (40) square feet per side; and sixty-three (63) feet for a sign face
greater than forty (40) square feet and not more than forty-five (45) square
feet per side. Lighting measurements shall be taken with the meter aimed
directly at the message center face, with the message center turned off, and
again with the message center turned on to a full white image for a message
center capable of displaying a white color, or a full amber or red image for
a message center capable of displaying only an amber or red color. The
difference between the off and the white, amber or red message
measurements shall not exceed three tenths (.3) footcandles. All such signs
shall contain a default mechanism that will cause the message center to revert
immediately to a black screen if the sign malfunctions.
Prior to the issuance of a permit for a sign containing an electronic message
center, the permit applicant shall provide written certification from the sign
manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory pre-set not to exceed
the levels specified above. Prior to acceptance of the installation by the City,
the permit holder shall schedule an inspection with the City Zoning
Department to verify compliance. The permit holder and the business owner,
business manager or property manager shall be in attendance during the
inspection.
(c) A displayed message The message must be monochrome in an amber, green,
blue, red or white color,
(d) The maximum allowed size area of the an electronic message display center
shall be fifty (50) percent of the total area of the sign face. not exceed fifty
(50) percent of the total area of the sign face.
(e) Electrical signs that contain an electronic changeable copy module which do
not comply with the provisions of the Section shall be removed and made to
conform by December 29, 2013. Electronic message centers shall be
integrally designed as part of a larger sign face or part of the structure, shall
not be the predominant element of the sign, and shall not be allowed on a
freestanding pole sign.
(f) With respect to sign permits issued after December 30, 2011, the pixel
spacing of an electronic message center shall not exceed sixteen (16) mm,
except that the maximum pixel spacing for a message center that is
manufactured as a monochrome-only sign shall not exceed nineteen (19)
mm.
-3-
(g) In the D – Downtown zone district, wall signs with electronic message
centers are not permitted on properties located within the boundaries of the
Portable Sign Placement Area Map.
(h) With respect to sign permits issued after December 30, 2011, no more than
one electronic message center sign shall be allowed to face each street
abutting or within any property and/or site specific development plan. The
minimum horizontal distance between electronic message center signs
located on the same side of a street shall be one hundred (100) feet measured
in a straight line.
(i) An electronic message center located inside a building but visible from a
public sidewalk or public street is subject to all of the regulations contained
in Section 3.8.7(M).
(j) Signs that contain an electronic message center which do not comply with the
provisions of this Section shall be removed or made to conform as required
by Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(b) of this Land Use Code, except that the fifteen (15)
year period contained in said section shall be changed to a date certain as
follows:
1. Electronic message centers that contain dimming software or solar
sensors capable of meeting the brightness levels described in Section
3.8.7(M)(4)(b) shall be required to comply with such levels by
January 31, 2012, and all electronic message centers located inside
a building but visible from a public sidewalk or public street shall be
required to comply with Sections 3.8.7(M)(1) and 3.8.7(M)(4)(a) and
(c) by January 31, 2012.
2. Except as otherwise required in subsection (j)(1) above, all signs that
do not comply with the requirements of Sections 3.8.7(M)(4)(a), (b),
and/or (c) shall be made to comply with those requirements by
December 31, 2015.
3. Structural changes or sign removal that may be required in order to
comply with the requirements of Sections 3.8.7(M)(4)(d),(e), and or
(g) shall be completed by December 31, 2019.
Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition
of a new definition “Electronic message center” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Electronic message center shall mean the portion of an on-premise ground or wall sign that
is capable of displaying words or images that can be electronically changed by remote or automatic
means.
-4-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
60 seconds Yes
Study underway of current regs and other options to Council re: possible changes or
prohibition
Gainesville, FL No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Prior to 2008 they were allowed under limited circumstances, but the code changed and they
were not permitted because of their distraction. When the change occurred, there was a
provision that the prohibition would be reviewed in 3 years. That review is occuring for their
entire code, and no changes are being proposed to remove the prohibition.
Greeley, CO Yes 50% No Yes No 30 seconds No
New sign code was adopted October 2010; committee, research, old code was too
prohibitive, technologies change open door to look at it again
Iowa City, IA
Yes; only within
commercial or public
zones. Only time and
temp signs allowed in
residential zone.
40%, monument sign 50% No Yes
Limited to just
one color
60 minutes; time and
temperature signs are
not regulated
No Code was revised about 5 years ago to allow these signs.
Norman, OK Yes Only regulate for institution signs, 50% No No No
Gas signs are allowed to
change because of
assumed infrequency, all
others are not
No Code has been in effect with minor changes since '92.
Provo, UT Yes N/A
Flashing/Scrolling in
commercial zones
Yes No 10 seconds No
Recently amended the shopping center area, adopted new zones for downtown area that sign
code has changed. Downtown needs rejuvenation, large shopping center wanted to do
signage that wasn't permitted, so Provo accommodated their request and revised other
sections of sign code.
Santa Barbara, CA
Yes; only for theater
marquee signs, business
directories, church and
museaum signs, gas
price signs.
N/A No No No N/A No
Last month, City Council approved gas stations to allow electronic message advertisements.
Was surprised City Council allowed this ‐ they're trying to be business friendly. Since it's so
new, not many are taking advantage, so it hasn't been a problem so far.
Tempe, AZ
Yes; only for theaters,
places of worship,
museams, and gas
stations
Gas price sign ‐ 50%; others are not limited Yes No No N/A No Code was revised in 2005. Churches have been the most common user of digital signs.
Peer City Review ‐ Digital Sign Regulations