Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDMENT TO FORT COLLINS SIGN CODE - RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT - 38-92 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - Recommendation/Report (2) ITEM NO. 9 MEETING DATE 1?8192 iii STAFF Joe Frank/Peter Barn s City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Amendment to Sign Code: Limitations for non-residential uses in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, #38-92. APPLICANT: Planning Department, City of Fort Collins PROJECT: Proposal to amend the City's Sign Code to include new provisions for non-residential uses in predominantly residential neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: While the Sign Code has generally worked well , there has been growing concern about signage as it applies to non-residential land uses in predominantly residential areas. This concern was affirmed in the City Council 's 1991 - 1993 Work Plan and the 1990 Audit of the Land Development Guidance System wherein City staff was directed to review the Sign Code and prepare necessary changes to address these concerns. The City's Planning Department and Building Permits and Inspection Division staff, with the assistance of a local consulting firm has prepared changes to the Sign Code to address these concerns. In general , the recommendations are two-fold: First, new standards are being recommended for the Sign Code which will regulate the amount, location and design of signs for nonresidential land uses in residential areas: Secondly, these provisions only apply to non-residential developments located in the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District", which is considered to be those areas of the community which are predominantly residential in use and character. This district excludes predominately commercial areas, for instance, College Avenue, Downtown and along portions of Harmony Road and Prospect Roads. On June 22, 1992, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this matter. Also, an additional meeting was held between the staff and a committee of sign company representatives. The comments and suggestions received from these meetings were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board in work session in August. As a result of these meetings, several changes to the draft ordinance have been made as follows: First, existing signs in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District were made subject to the new regulations whenever such signs are erected or remodeled pursuant to a permit after the date of enactment of these regulations, except however, existing signs will not be subject to the more restrictive sign allowance provisions of these regulations; Second, logos on individual tenant spaces exceeding 45,000 sq ft in floor area will be allowed to be as large as 54 inches in height; Third, the extent of signage on awnings will be limited to the lesser of 35 square feet per individual tenant space (new provision) or 25% of the total area of the awning (old provision) ; Fourth, the bonus provision for freestanding and ground signs will apply to secondary signs (new provision) as well as primary signs (old provision) . The areas of change are indicated in the shaded areas of the following "Proposed Amendments to the Sign Code". The Planning and Zoning Board is being asked to make a recommendation to the City finalCouncil regarding the prnpospd am nts. Thp City Council will make the decision. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins,CO80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 2 Comments: Introduction: Several years ago, the City of Fort Collins enacted regulations to control the location and design of signage on private property. While the Sign Code has been well received by both the business industry and public, there has been growing concern that these regulations do not adequately control signage as it applies to shopping centers and free-standing auto-related and business service uses located in predominantly residential areas. This concern was affirmed in the City Councils' 1991-1993 Work Plan and the 1990 Audit of the Land Development Guidance System (LOGS) wherein City staff was directed to review the Sign Code and prepare necessary changes to address these concerns. In general , the concerns include the amount of signage allowed under the current code; appearance and aesthetics, and; compatibility with neighborhood quality and character. Some specific issues which have been identified include the size and finish of freestanding/ground signs; illumination; window signage, and; architectural compatibility. This is not a criticism of existing businesses or sign companies. Rather, staff has found in its research that many businesses located in or near residential areas of the community are already sensitive to these issues and have, in many cases, been doing a very good job in designing and controlling signage. In fact, many of these projects have been used as models for development of the proposed regulations. The proposed Sign Code changes are intended to reduce or eliminate opportunities for abuse of the existing code which could result in signage which is incompatible with an adjoining residential neighborhood. The City's Land Development Guidance System currently includes a provision which allows the Planning and Zoning Board to impose more restrictive signage requirements than the Sign Code in planned unit developments. The Planning and Zoning Board and City staff have used this provision to regulate signs in new planned unit developments. The proposed sign code provisions are compatible with the requirements imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board in the recent past. What has become apparent is that lacking in the LDGS and Sign Code are clear, consistent and documented standards and criteria for approving signage in shopping centers and free-standing retail/office uses located in predominantly residential areas. The proposed additions to the Sign Code are intended to address this problem. Under the proposed changes, the amount and design of signage will be regulated by the Sign Code through the addition of new requirements specifically prepared to address the issue of neighborhood character and compatibility. The review and approval of permits for individual signs will be by the City's Building Permits and Inspection Division staff. The Planning and Zoning Board will continue to review signage in planned unit developments only to the extent that the location of flushwall signs relate to the architectural character of the associated buildings. All other aspects of signage in this District will be controlled under the new Sign Code provisions. We believe the explicit listing of signage requirements in the Sign Code and LDGS should make the decision-making process more predictable and consistent from Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 3 project to project. This should help all parties to better understand the basis for decision-making in advance. And most importantly, signage should be better designed and made more compatible with its residential surroundings. More precise criteria should also help reduce the City's administrative costs in the review and approval of signs. Lastly, this project is not intended to address other "community-wide" concerns about signage or other issues related to specific geographic areas outside of the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District". Nor does it change the authority of the Board to review signs in predominantly commercial areas located outside of the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" as provided for in the Sign Code and LOGS. These issues and others will be considered during an upcoming "audit" of the Sign Code which will be undertaken by City staff in 1993. Recommended Changes:_ The City of Fort Collins staff, with the assistance of a local consulting firm, has prepared the following changes to the Sign Code to address the above issues. The recommended changes are indicated in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS. An explanation (in italics) follows each specific code change. In general , the recommendations are two-fold: First, clear and consistent standards are recommended for the amount, location and design of signs in the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" which will guide City staff in the approval of individual tenant sign permits. These provisions will be incorporated into the Sign Code. The Planning and Zoning Board will retain its ability to review proposed signage only to the extent that the location of flushwall signs are compatible with the architectural character of the building. Second, these provisions shall only apply totxx ;,;;..@I;'f3 developments located in an area known as the "Residential Neighboffi6odiSgn`6strict" as indicated on the attached map. This district includes areas of the community which are considered by the City as being predominantly residential in use and character. This district excludes predominantly commercial or industrial areas, for instance, College Avenue, Downtown., _a.90 along portions„of.the iHarmony°Road and ProspectsRoad corridors, I �} z 1J° � 1� ;4� 1 � q C�t �T' p� eas 4((''�{�yC�S�4Cp C,p4• 4C4 .4�T 9'y��•.Ji Py4,C�fC�:vn.4�:>hC iR•9}4Y' NOf�M�{`4J45S.P°/>�° ..44"•i:AOv,:b.y�(•UAO�A{O•RhW(:�O,M:IXC,Att J�^O"`�LJ&�O,>r'b„.:n.�PyV.�6y}94f�s`4P P�JA�{0.•�1•,n�?0.JyyJyO:�#l�[%71b�t�.a•.XT.�ir��>���Zk P���Y�;=MF�'J ���•.`�#71•.4q'P'cV.:.�:.v�� a�`l?P�'Oi:��i ki�S���>�i1.lr:O:k.b ��lit'�`l=Vd�h:U7lCfY�f.Ti R.O P 5 P4•. OC Q. 4.. N q( O' C P�0.4.W.OXn�C'A O:SCµ�A A C} ORC MO^.l 0.UA�T.A4Y. R.W. x./v: S^rp�.4,0u n vOW C>IP YP•O AP4. O)J P>.LP P" N:4f v . ro. saS . a.A.°u,,. ..i}�..,. ,.,..A..P-•;.,., ,..,.3.�ga.Pm..�3.,...orty�...,.w i...CTa`"ro.... .e,: 6 a.,...:c:....,, ....a=•.v.,.. ...p...;....:...:..;:.: t>::ia; : 11sJ na . .kehnsu eat £: marx4: fie<v;<:s:- `r��> s� 1 awc : vt}.�:. .0.:. i..�:..W.iM..�:.J. L.R>M...'rn�::.=.�}.L.F.vS.f`•.}ny..h�.n.:}}:::1}.t•:..-0=..A.:�.:.J\:::::%v.�v:.k:h:Q..P::}>�:n.Jnv.P:M^.:C�::.$...Pe:P.nP.v.:t:.v}>;..P::? .:.W..(P.rv<_.vf xihvV_.}:>v:.v.4.>4 v.: p:4 JJ 4*YJ$,w /�P S o �4 to64>='4¢yi�..J t i rn�`, yr�•rP, .»Vloi1•,� [LbI;gSy b�pki '4F �4�R Citizen Participation Process Many opportunities were provided during the planning process for citizen comment. First, an advisory committee composed of representatives of major sign companies operating in the Ft. Collins area was formed to provide guidance to staff on the technical aspects of the project. This committee met several times with staff between October, 1991 and August, 1992, including meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board in a special work session on June 16, 1992. Amendmen to age r ber Z., the Si 19.92 P& Ode Q tin Nejghbor Profes une, ove 9 hood Commercial Ar Pro slonal r 1�5 eas Japed os s, et e Included an I and - yh � rganma I led to more 92' No sOn tation d them lotions sign co Neight'ng a shlo' approxfe} except Staff atathebpla meet n"terested cdevelopers si orhood Aping motel attend nnfn9 a g on dun 'lens 9n code Sign center Y 3p le ed the nd Io e 4 about design whit �fstr. ,S an tiers dune nfn9 Bo Thfs the In h re 7ct and/or wer 4 ar 1e the addition late to a informf busfne a sent t public me hear. tier on Proposed Staff h xIsting sg them of es loco owners eting. g on on four dff code c as had igns. the re aced i and/or June feren hanges several cent ch n the nmana Public hearings ohnd S caspies to dfs�u Plan. convQrsa an9es in the p oe otial the matter have 199,he F nand ecss t hi G$DoWith eindfv�du p sed n Pals ublishQd' "noai conducted Pub?Open 'c s es ear about cal newspPe house and Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 5 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE (August, 25, 1992) Section 1. Revise the title of Section 29-593, 'Limitations for Nonresidential Districts and Uses" to read "LIMITATIONS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND USES". Explanation: This change clarifies that Section 29-593 provides "general" limitations for non-residential uses and Section 29-593.1 (new) provides "specific" limitations for the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District". Section 2. Add a new Section 29-593.1 to read : "LIMITATIONS FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT", as follows: THERE IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED A "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT" FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING SIGNS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE CITY WHICH MAY BE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED BY SUCH SIGNS BECAUSE OF THEIR PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL USE AND CHARACTER. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SIGN DISTRICT SHALL BE SHOWN ON A MAP WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ANY AMENDMENTS TO THIS MAP SHALL BE MADE IN THE SAME MANNER AS AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY, AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 29-23 AND 29-24. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL ONLY APPLY TO PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTERS, BUSINESS SERVICE USES, AND AUTO-RELATED AND ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL USES IN THE "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD_SIGN DISTRICT" WHICH ,ARE..;DEUELOPED,..ON..OR_..:AFTER "date...of j. enactment) .h44T< thr `a ¢44>0;} s�tr� 1 ¢ pN�. Jf71:4� ,`n:1e{E:::�S:?^ e''`<�� }:��..+�.:..�+�!,a>w:� c:{. :a �� o:. ���0'1,.{f.4'm � ��5}}io: � �..::.�.L:ss..�,:t.:/�.ee.:rr..,. o- USES r►i �+ �! yip �? r}, yj �{ �j} "� :4:{.''.�..�Ojrvrv}-0:h.:m::�:!:rv�.+.-v:rv::.{w,.n:}i}}•.:,,:.,v(. }...}.:i..:':.. ,:...{::::.rv�:+.i,,v�:.y{.:.k..../nr•:.!{}{':,{�H.-A'H'�,.Fy..4'r.<!:..x.. 0::.�}C:P� ;l[���-{,{.��0it.�9,:\Y: �7.U �C['.:..U...4.u.�..`{� g R�j j -.����jff .. ..>.:�:�:� �F ::):i:J:r 0:4.o...J..Ja..o.4:.o.tJ»:4b.b.A.d S:u:4 G. .. .. \o.,o-..fi:4J J ..41�.t�. .rc.•w• � J.L:':wyu ..:..:.....:..k,..nr;nfi5r':a. Explanation: At present, Section 29-593 of the Sign Code contains all of the regulations that apply to signage for nonresidential uses regardless of where such uses are located within the City. This new section establishes sign criteria for nonresidential uses which are located in the new "Residential Neighborhood Sign District". This means that these new requirements will apply to this District in addition to the existing Sign Code regulations. These new requirements are generally more restrictive than what is currently required under the Sign Code. Attached is a map, list of definitions and examples wherein the proposed sign code changes would apply. (1) SIGNS REGULATED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 29, ARTICLE IV, EXCEPT THAT WHEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO A PARTICULAR SIGN, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE LIMITATION SHALL APPLY. Explanation: This is a typical provision. It establishes that other provisions of the Sign Code also apply to this District, and where two provisions may conflict, the more restrictive one applies. Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 6 (2) SIGNS REGULATED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL ALSO CONFORM TO ANY LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNDER SECTION 29-526. EXCEPT AS TO LOCATION, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD SHALL NOT IMPOSE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS OR CONDITIONS THAN REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION. Explanation: This provision adds language to the Sign Code that requires signs to be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan. It also limits the ability of the Planning and Zoning Board to be more restrictive than what the Sign Code permits. (3) NO SIGN SHALL PROJECT MORE THAN TWELVE (12) INCHES BEYOND THE BUILDING FASCIA. UNDER-CANOPY SIGNS WHICH ARE PERPENDICULAR TO THE FACE OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE EXEMPTED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT EXCEPT THAT THEY SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR (4) SQUARE FEET IN AREA PER FACE. Explanation: Basically, this section prohibits projecting wall signs. At present, such signs are allowed so long as they do not project more than 6 feet from the face of the building and do not exceed 15 square feet per face in size. Under-canopy signs would be limited to 4 square feet, whereas such signs are currently allowed to be 15 square feet. (4) FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGNS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, NUMBER AND HEIGHT: USE MAXIMUM AREA PER MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM HE'I.GH7_ SIGN FACE SIGNSVE EFPCOMHE FRONTAGE AUTO-RELATED AND PRIMARY - 32 S.F. PRIMARY - 1 PRIMARY - 5 FT. ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE USES NEIGHBORHOOD PRIMARY - 40 S.F. PRIMARY - 1 PRIMARY - 8 FT. CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD PRIMARY - 55 S.F. PRIMARY - 1 PRIMARY - SERVICE CENTER SECONDARY - SECONDARY - 1 10 FT. 32 S.F. SECONDARY - 6 FT. Explanation: This proposes requirements for freestanding or ground signs which are considerably more restrictive than the current code. The maximum number of signs per street frontage is in some cases more limited. The maximum size and height allowed are quite different from the current code. At present, such signs for any type of nonresidential use may be as large as 120 square feet per face Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 7 and as tall as 24 feet. The proposed code would limit the maximum size to 55 square feet and the maximum height to 10 feet for neighborhood service centers; 40 square feet and 8 feet high for neighborhood convenience shopping centers, and; 32 square feet and 5 feet high for freestanding commercial uses. (5) FREESTANDING SIGNS SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY IF CONSTRUCTED WITH A SUPPORTING SIGN STRUCTURE, THE WIDTH OF WHICH EXCEEDS SEVENTY (70) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE SIGN FACE. FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGNS SHALL CONTAIN NO MORE THAN TWO (2) FACES. NO FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED LESS THAN SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FROM ANY DIRECTLY ABUTTING PROPERTY WHICH CONTAINS AN EXISTING OR APPROVED RESIDENTIAL USE OR IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE TERM "APPROVED" SHALL BE DEFINED AS HAVING CURRENT PRELIMINARY OR FINAL PUD APPROVAL. Explanation: This provision limits the use of freestanding signs to those signs which have a base which exceeds 70Y of the width of the sign face. At present, freestanding signs are allowed regardless of the width of the supporting structure. For example, a sign is now allowed even if the base or supporting structure is a single pole. Also, signs with more than 2 faces will not be allowed. Signs will be setback a minimum of 75 feet from residential uses. No such criteria exist in the present code. (6) ALL SUPPORTING SIGN STRUCTURES OF A FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGN SHALL MATCH THE PRIMARY FINISH AND COLORS OF THE ASSOCIATED BUILDING(S) . Explanation: Requires signs structures (e.g. base) to match the finish and colors of the building(s) to which the signs are advertising. No such criteria exist in the present Code. (7) ALL SIGNS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN FOUR (4) SQUARE FEET IN AREA, EXCEPT GROUND SIGNS AND THOSE SIGNS WHICH REPLICATE A BUSINESS LOGO, MUST BE COMPRISED ONLY OF INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OR CABINETS WHEREIN ONLY THE LETTERS ARE ILLUMINATED. Explanation: This requires signs exceeding 4 square feet to be only individual letter signs or cabinets wherein only the letters are illuminated. The present Code does not have any such limitation. For instance, a sign larger that 4 square feet could be a cabinet sign wherein the entire cabinet is illuminated. Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 8 (8) THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF INDIVIDUAL LETTERS AND LOGOS ON FLUSHWALL SIGNS AND FLUSH WALL CABINETS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: USE MAXIMUM LETTER MAXIMUM LOGO MAXIMUM CABINET HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT AUTO—RELATED AND 12" 18" 18" ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE USES NEIGHBORHOOD 18" 24" 24" CONVENIENCE SHQPPING CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD 2411* 3011* 3011* SERVICE CENTER *ANY INDIVIDUAL TENANT SPACE EXCEEDING FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND (45,000) SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA SHALL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) FLUSHWALL SIGN WITH INDIVIDUAL LETTERS NOT TO EXCEED FORTY-EIGHT 48) INCHES IN HEIGHT 3 _ :;<j_ ter' :Oi. -.-. x. .: ':.i 1€} �Sn.. IIE.:II1 ':EI.EII. T. T`1IIH `4>>< 7J'CEs,. :N.h,. IT.. THE MAXIMUM CABINET �IETGHT SHAIF:'8:E:;:<firff=SOUR >(54: :«.: NCHES<aN H tGHT: >::>o Explanation: Restricts the height of letter and cabinet signs. Major tenants (exceeding 45,000 square feet) may have the largest letters and cabinet. There presently is no limitation to the height of such signs. (9) IF SIGNS ARE ILLUMINATED, ONLY INTERNAL ILLUMINATION SHALL BE PERMITTED. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL NOT APPLY TO FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGNS. Explanation: Limits the type of illumination for wall signs to only internal illumination. The current code allows any type of illumination. (10) THE LENGTH OF ANY FLUSHWALL SIGN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT SPACE SHALL BE LIMITED TO SEVENTY-FIVE (75) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE TENANT STOREFRONT, BUT NO SIGN SHALL EXCEED FORTY (40) FEET IN LENGTH; PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL TENANT SPACE EXCEEDING FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND (45,000) SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA SHALL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) FLUSHWALL SIGN NOT EXCEEDING FIFTY-FIVE (55) FEET IN LENGTH. EACH TENANT SPACE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONE SUCH FLUSHWALL SIGN ON EACH EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE TENANT SPACE. IN THE EVENT THAT A TENANT SPACE DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECTLY ADJACENT EXTERIOR WALL, ONE SIGN NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY (30) SQUARE FEET MAY BE ERECTED ON AN EXTERIOR WALL OF THE BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING THAT TENANT SPACE. Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 9 Explanation: This provision restricts the length of wall signs for each tenant space and the size of wall signs for a tenant space that does not contain a directly adjacent exterior wall. At present, there is no length or size restriction for such signs. (11) NO ILLUMINATED SIGN VISIBLE FROM OR WITHIN THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET OF ANY PROPERTY WHICH CONTAINS AN EXISTING OR APPROVED RESIDENTIAL USE OR IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, MAY BE ILLUMINATED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF ELEVEN (11:00) P.M. (OR ONE-HALF (1/2) HOUR AFTER THE USE TO WHICH IT IS PERTAINS IS CLOSED, WHICHEVER IS LATER) AND SIX (6:00) A.M. ; PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT THIS TIME LIMITATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LIGHTING WHICH IS PRIMARILY USED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PREMISES OR FOR SAFETY PURPOSES OR ANY SIGNAGE WHICH IS SEPARATED FROM A RESIDENTIAL USE BY AN ARTERIAL STREET. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE TERM "APPROVED" SHALL BE DEFINED AS HAVING CURRENT PRELIMINARY OR FINAL PUD APPROVAL. Explanation: Requires that signs visible from within 300 feet of a residential property, may not be illuminated during late evening and early morning hours (business which operate during these hours are exempt). The current code does not limit the hours of illumination for any sign. (12) ONE FLUSHWALL SIGN OR UNDER-CANOPY SIGN PER STREET FRONTAGE, NOT TO EXCEED TWELVE (12) SQUARE FEET IN AREA, SHALL BE PERMITTED ON OR UNDER THE FASCIA OF A CANOPY COVERING THE RETAIL DISPENSING OR SALES OF VEHICULAR FUELS. Explanation: Limits the number and size of signs which can be displayed on a gas canopy. There is presently no such restriction. (13) AWNING SIGNS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE BACK-LIT EXCEPT FOR INDIVIDUAL LETTERS AND BUSINESS LOGO ONLY.. THE EXTENT OF SIGNAGE ON AN AWNING SHALL BE LIMITED TO T LES'SER QF TRI.TY=F iI <<1+ R LIAR 1 E 1 IR INPIj IQUAL 7 NAN'1'x ME Q( TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT OF 7NE tO7At l�REA O SHE""AWNING,` AND SHALL BE {1PPLID TO THE MOST VERTICAL PORTION OF THE AWNING. AWNING SIGNS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ABOVE THE FIRST STORY OF A BUILDING. Explanation: Restricts the type of illumination for awnings, the amount of signage allowed on awnings, and the permitted location of awnings on the building. The current code does not restrict any of these elements of awning signs. (14) FOR THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET IN BUILDING FRONTAGE LENGTH IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CENTER, THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA PERMITTED SHALL BE EQUAL TO ONE AND ONE-QUARTER (1 1/4) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE LENGTH. FOR THAT PORTION OF A BUILDING FRONTAGE WHICH EXCEEDS TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET IN LENGTH, THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA PERMITTED SHALL BE EQUAL TO TWO-THIRDS (2/3) FOOT FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE LENGTH OVER SUCH TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET. Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 10 Explanation: This provision reduces the total sign allowance for a building located in a neighborhood service center by using smaller numbers in the sign allowance calculation formula. The formula is basically the same one which is now in the Sign Code, however the multipliers of 2 and I have been replaced by 1 114 and 213 respectively. For example, a building with 100 feet of building frontage currently gets a sign allowance of 200 square feet. Using the proposed formula, the same 100 foot building would have a sign allowance of 125 square feet. A building with 210 feet of building frontage currently gets a sign allowance of 410 square feet. The new formula would give such a building an allowance of 256.7 square feet. (15) FOR THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET IN BUILDING FRONTAGE LENGTH IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER, BUSINESS SERVICE USE OR AUTO-RELATED AND ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL USE, THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA PERMITTED SHALL BE EQUAL TO ONE (1) SQUARE FOOT FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE LENGTH. FOR THAT PORTION OF A BUILDING FRONTAGE WHICH EXCEEDS TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET IN LENGTH, THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA PERMITTED SHALL BE EQUAL TO ONE-HALF (1/2) FOOT FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE OVER SUCH TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET. Explanation: Reduces the total sign allowance for a building located in a neighborhood convenience shopping center, or a building which is a business service or auto-related use. As in (14) above, this is accomplished by using smaller numbers in the formula. In this case, the multipliers of 2 and I have been replaced by 1 and 112 respectively. The sign allowance for a building with 100 feet of frontage becomes 100 square feet instead of the 200 square feet currently allowed. (16) IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC SIZE ALLOWANCE PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION 29-593.1 (4) , THE SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT OF A FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGN MAY BE INCREASED BY AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY (20) PERCENT IF ONLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE NAME AND/OR LOGO OF THE RETAIL CENTER OR BUSINESS PARK IS USED ON THE PRIMARY OR. S'OCONDARY FREESTANDING OR GROUND SIGN T[iT obBQl l S€ #1<I t3_0 B ' J P1?1� 1 h Ttt THE RLI STAN(}TN04>QR><6131t1cI E�1 ,3�fi , k1ITitTlalt 4tS Explanation: This allows for the size of the freestanding or ground sign to be increased by as much as 20% if the sign displays only the name of the retail center or business park. The present code permits the total sign allowance for the entire project to be increased 25% if all the signs for the project are individual letter signs and/or ground signs. (17) WINDOW SIGNS, OTHER THAN TEMPORARY WINDOW SIGNS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION 29- 593.1 (18), MAY GENERALLY COVER UP TO TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT OF THE SURFACE AREA OF THE WINDOW OR DOOR IN WHICH SUCH SIGNS ARE PLACED. Explanation: This provision establishes limitations for the area of permanent window signs. There are presently no such limitations. The staff feels comfortable that we can administer this new provision on a "trial basis" given the relatively small number of projects that will fall under this rule. However, additional staff resources will be required to enforce this kind of provision if it proves to be unmanageable or is expanded to include other development. Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 11 (18) A WINDOW SIGN SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A TEMPORARY WINDOW SIGN IF IT IS DISPLAYED IN THE SAME WINDOW OR DOOR, OR SAME APPROXIMATE LOCATION OUTSIDE OF A WINDOW OR DOOR, FOR NO MORE THAN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS WITHIN A SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD OF TIME. CHANGES IN THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON SUCH SIGN SHALL NOT AFFECT THE COMPUTATION OF THE THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD OF TIME PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. TEMPORARY WINDOW SIGNS MAY GENERALLY COVER UP TO TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT OF THE WINDOW OR DOOR IN WHICH THEY ARE PLACED. TEMPORARY WINDOW SIGNS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ABOVE THE FIRST STORY OF A BUILDING. Explanation: Same as (17) above. (19) IN CASES IN WHICH BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT WINDOW SIGNS ARE PLACED IN THE SAME WINDOW OR DOOR, NO MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT OF THAT WINDOW OR DOOR MAY BE COVERED BY SUCH SIGNS. Explanation: Same as (17) above. (20) IDEOLOGICAL AND ELECTION SIGNS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION (17) , (18) AND (19) . Explanation: Ideological and election signs are generally more protected than commercial signs by rights guaranteed in the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) of the U.S. Constitution and therefore should be exempt from the window sign requirements. Section 3. Add a new definition of uWINDOW SIGNS" to Section 29-1 "Definitions" as follows: WINDOW SIGN SHALL MEAN A SIGN WHICH IS PAINTED ON, APPLIED OR ATTACHED TO A WINDOW OR DOOR, OR LOCATED WITHIN THREE (3) FEET OF THE INTERIOR OF THE WINDOW OR DOOR AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. Explanation: There currently is no definition for window signs. Section 4. Amend (b) of the Land Development Guidance System relating to preliminary architectural elevations as follows: "(b) . Preliminary architectural elevations of all buildings sufficient to convey the basic architectural intent of the proposed improvements, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED FLUSHWALL SIGNS. Explanation: Requires architectural elevations indicate location of proposed flushwall signs. Section 5. Add a new criterion to the ALL DEVELOPMENT category of the Land Development Guidance System as follows: 49. ARE FLUSHWALL SIGNS POSITIONED TO HARMONIZE WITH THE ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDINGS) TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTACHED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 12 PROJECTION, RELIEF, CORNICE, COLUMN, CHANGE OF BUILDING MATERIAL, WINDOW OR DOOR OPENING? DO THEY ALIGN WITH OTHER FLUSHWALL SIGNS ON THE SAME BUILDING? Explanation: Requires that Planning and Zoning Board consider the location of flushwall signs relative to the architectural design of proposed buildings as well as other adjacent flushwall signs. Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 13 SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS The City's Zoning Code and Land Development Guidance System contains the following definitions for various terms mentioned in the proposed amendments to the Sign Code as follows: "Shopping Center shall mean a group of more than four (4) retail and service establishments located in a complex which is planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit, with off-street parking provided on the property." "Community/Regional Shopping Center. A cluster of retail and service establishments designed to serve consumer demands from the community as a whole or a larger area. The primary functional offering is at least one full-line department store. The center also includes associated support shops which provide a variety of shopping goods including general merchandise, apparel , home furnishings, as well as a variety of services, and perhaps entertainment and recreational facilities." Example: Foothills Fashion Mall Pavilion Shopping Center Arbor Plaza Harmony Market "Neighborhood Service Center - A shopping and service center, approximately 15 acres in size, designed to meet consumer demands from an adjacent neighborhood. The primary functional offering is usually a supermarket grocer store with an approximately equivalent amount of associated mixed retail and service-oriented gross square footage. Other functional offerings may include employment uses, such as offices and/or commercial development traditionally located along major arterial streets. " Example: Scotch Pines Shopping Center Cedarwood Plaza Raintree Shopping Center Drake Crossing Shopping Center "Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center - A shopping and service center situated on seven or less acres with four or more business establishments located in a complex which is planned, developed, and managed as a unit, and located within and intended to primarily serve the consumer demands of adjacent residential neighborhoods. . ." Example: Cimmaron Plaza Collindale Convenience Center Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas September 28, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 14 Auto-Related and Roadside Commercial Use - Those retail and wholesale commercial activities which are generally considered and typically found along highways and arterial streets. Uses include: free-standing department stores, auction rooms; automobile service stations, repair facilities, car washes; boat, car, trailer, motorcycle showrooms, sales and repair; fuel and ice sales; greenhouses and nurseries; warehouses and storage; repair or rental of any article; exterminating shops; drive-in restaurants; adult book stores; eating places with adult amusement or entertainment; adult photo studios; adult theaters; any uses intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment; and, another uses which are of the same general character. Business Service Uses - Those activities which are predominantly retail , office and service uses which would not qualify or be a part of a neighborhood or community/regional shopping center. Uses include: retail shops; offices; personal service shops; financial institutions; hotels/motels; medical clinics; health clubs; membership clubs; standards and fast food restaurants; hospitals; mortuaries; indoor theaters; retail laundry and dry-cleaning outlets; limited indoor recreation uses; small animal veterinary clinics; printing and newspaper offices; and, other uses which are of the same general character. Freestanding sign - . .a detached sign which is supported by one or more . . .poles. . .provided that no part of the sign is attached to any part of any building. .. Ground sign - . .a freestanding sign which is erected on the ground and which contains no free air space between the ground and the top of the sign. Flushwall sign - . . .any sign attached to . . the wall of a building with the sign face in a place parallel to the plane of said wall . . . Issues Raised at 6/22/92 PZ Meeting 1 . Look at whether existing signage could be brought into ,conformance at some point in time (Cunningham, Cooney, Strom, O 'Dell, Cottier, Carrol) 2 . Why are free standing and ground signs allowed to have external illumination if all other signs have internal illumination (Cunningham) . 3. How about a "brightness" control? e. g, maximum amount of illumens? (Cunningham, Klataske) 4 . Window signs should be counted in the sign allowance, whether temporary or not . (Cunningham) Is the amount of window signage (25% ) too much? (Strom) Is it enforceable? (Strom) 5 . Concerned that proposed amendment does not address discretionary PUD review in other "commercial" districts. He believes that the Sign Code should prevail (Franz) . 6 . Should we regulate large realtor signs? (Cooney) 7. Should there be a limitation on the total amount of awning signage? (Cottier) 8 . Should the sign "bonus" for free standing signs be extended to all signage in the project? (Cottier) Should the "bonus" apply if a tenant ' s name was on the secondary sign? (O' Dell) 10 . Provide examples of how signs are measured. (Cottier) 7 ` ! n � 1 4 --- --------------------- �.-- 1 � I I I 3� 110 r 11 1 f t• - 1 Li ki • • , 1' WH f 1 C L r1 !i- Z !- ------ O • / .0 44 u qq V H ` OZ Ir E r V V C W -41 `0 0 O� ' i \ 0 . v � � H • ~' y j t i P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 14 Member Clements-Cooney asked how this ODP might be impacted by the Prospect Street Scape program should that be adopted. Ms. Clark replied they would be reviewing that at a preliminary P.U.D. and she would think that this could affect potentially the landscape set back, the area that was delineated now. It also could help them determine the kind of plant materials that go into that area. Right now the ODP was showing a forty foot landscape setback. There was potential that this could be somewhat different depending on what version of Prospect Corridor was ultimately adopted and how this area fit into that corridor plan. They would be evaluating any future preliminary P.U.D.'s against whatever they have adopted for the Prospect Corridor Streetscape. They would be looking at plant materials as well as the landscape setback, also, the specifics on the street design and how Prospect was constructed in that area would also be determined somewhat by whatever was adopted in the Prospect Corridor Streetscape Design. Member Carroll moved for approval of Silverberg PUD, Overall Development Plan. Member Clements-Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll added the Mulberry/I-25 area was totally out of the City's control when developed and so the City had no input into that area. This site was annexed in 1989 and when it was annexed it was zoned as a highway business zoning but with a P.U.D. condition, meaning that if it didn't have that condition someone could simply build a use that fit the highway business without any further review by us. It did have a P.U.D. condition so he would certainly hope this would be given a much stronger look than some of the other areas that you see that are ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years old and they were are already looking at the Prospect Road Streetscape going all the way a mile past 1-25, which if adopted by Council would incorporate this property into it. Chairman Strom commented that looking at the map they still don't have any control over highway 14 and 1-25 or for that matter Harmony Road and I-25 so that would mean some better influence over those intersections before anything happens there. Motion passed 6-0. AMENDMENT TO SIGN CODE: LIMITATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT. 1i38-92. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director gave a brief overview and background on the proposed amendment and Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator and co-manager would went over in detail the sign amendments. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Alan Cunningham, president of Scenic Colorado, stated they were very interested in billboard control,on-campus signage. They also had concerns about on-premise signage and towers and overhead P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 15 utility lines, and other visually polluting sights such as junk yards, vehicle storage, unnecessarily exposed extraction equipment, mining scars and commercial strips. Regarding on-premise signage they were very pleased with the progress in the Fort Collins Sign Code. Regarding the changes tonight, the only things that were a concern to him was that they were grandfathering in whatever was out there now in the affected districts. People may have just put up an expensive sign two years ago, maybe even with PUD approval. They felt that at some point in the future, that existing signage should be brought into conformance. There weren't really very many out there in the affected districts that would need to be brought into conformance, given enough time for amortization. He was a little unclear on why it was the exact classifications of areas, such as Neighborhood Service Center were listed. It would seem to be in the concept of fairness, that all signage in the affected districts be viewed in the same way. He did not understand why the free standing and ground signs should not also be internally illuminated only. He did not think anywhere in the code was there a reference to the intensity of brightness except as if affects traffic hazards. He thought they might want to look at having some kind of lumens output designated, particularly in the residential areas. Finally, the concept of window signage, the viewpoint of Scenic Colorado regarding on-premise signage was that window signs should just simply be counted in the allowable sign area and whether they were temporary or permanent, was not a matter of concern. They recommend that they be included in the allowable sign area in these districts. Fred Franz, Adcon Signs, stated several years ago, the City of Fort Collins adopted a very comprehensive Sign Code. That Code, which is in effect today, was still regarded very highly in the city and throughout the country. He thought this could be very easily demonstrated by reading letters to the editor that had appeared most recently in the past months concerning campus signage. That did reiterate that the general citizenry of Fort Collins was happy with the code we have. Earlier this year, the City Planning Staff contacted members of the sign industry to explain a proposed code devoted to business uses near residential areas. It was the intent of staff to downsize signage in areas of the City that presented impacts on neighborhoods. Four representatives of industry, Mr. Mery Eckman from Adcon Signs, Mr. Fred Gardner from Gardener Signs, Mr.John Shaw from Shaw sign and awning and himself, had devoted many hours in deliberation with City Planning and Zoning personnel to insure a smooth transition that would allow adequate signs for the business community and still leave a favorable impact on the neighborhoods. During the planning stages of the new portion of the sign code, the industry representatives voiced their concerns over the lack of consistency and decisions being rendered to commercial enterprise under the guise of power granted by the Land Development Guidance System. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 16 Some projects were allowed to erect signs consistent with the current law as defined by the Sign Code, while other signs were severely reduced in size for no apparent reason. They were told by Staff, that these concerns of size, pertained only to the businesses that were in primarily residential areas. They had no affect on the industrial, commercial and highway business zones. The proposed code changes did in fact downsize the impact of signage in the new residential neighborhood sign district. Members of industry support the new code revision with one major exception. Under the new sign district, a business person would be allowed signs under a strict zoning formula, everyone would be treated equally and know in advance what the law allowed. Planning and Zoning Board would not rule as to the size of signs allowed but would still determine the position of signs on the building. This was also agreeable with industry. However, under the new code change, there was no provision to remove past problems with regard to number and size of signs allowed by code in the very heart of the commercial districts. In a recent worksession, which industry representatives met with the Board, they discussed what they felt were certain inequities of the past. He would strongly restate the position of the industry with regards to signs in non-residential zones. They felt that the law was very clear on what was allowed to each and every sign user. They felt the code was very clear as to the size and placement of signs. They did not agree that signs allowed by law, trigger LDGS Guidelines for being excessive nor a detriment to the neighborhood. They concur that the Board should determine placement of signs on the buildings of PUD's but the signs as allowed by code, should be the law of the land. They think they have a very beautiful City in which each business person was able to advertise their commercial endeavor, but cannot and will not support the new sign regulations unless the City Sign Ordinance was returned to its rightful place as the authority of sign usage in the commercial districts of Fort Collins. CLOSE OF PUBLIC INPUT Member Clements-Cooney asked if there was a plan for existing signs to be brought into conformance should the new Sign Code be adopted. Mr. Barnes replied that the proposal before the Board would be applicable only to new PUD's which would be approved after the effective date of the Sign Code amendment. It would not be retroactive to existing centers. Member Clements-Cooney asked about the large realtor signs and the fact that this did not take that into account, was this form of signage taken into account anywhere in the Sign Code. Mr. Barnes replied, in the sign code presently, in a residential area, those signs could be no larger that 6 square feet for "for sale or lease" signs. In non-residential zones, those could be no larger that 32 square feet. Member Clements-Cooney asked them to consider bringing existing signage into conformance with the sign code. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 17 Mr. Barnes stated what Mr. Cunningham aluded to was an amortization period. When the code was originally adopted in 1971, there was a 6-year amortization period, which meant by 1977 all of the signs that did not comply with the code had to be brought into compliance. Chairman Strom asked since the new Sign Code would only apply to new PUD's, did that mean that an existing PUD that changes ownership and the new owner decided that he was not happy with the signage he had now and for whatever reason wanted to bump it up to the previous sign code limits, could he do SO. Mr. Barnes replied he could go to whatever the PUD authorized him to go to under the current proposal. Chairman Strom asked if most of the PUD's have fairly a specific sign limits. Mr. Barnes replied only the new ones. Go back 4 or 5 years, they would not be that specific. Chairman Strom stated it made him wonder if they shouldn't consider dealing with existing signage in existing PUD's more on the order that they deal with non-conforming uses in the zoning code and effectively say that if you were over the new standard, then you could stay that way, but you could not expand. Mr. Barnes replied that was another way of dealing with amortization, dealing with trying to bring non- conforming signs into conformance when the use changes, was when the new sign is put in. That was something they could give them more information on. Member O'Dell agreed with that idea. She thought it would be more equitable to have the existing PUD's come into conformance with the new Sign Code. Member Cottier asked, when they did amendments, was there usually an amortization period involved. Mr. Barnes replied the only time they had an amortization period was when the original code was adopted in 1971. There was also one when they deal with annexed properties. Member Klataske asked if there had been any consideration as to style of architecture being considered part of the signage. Also, interior illumination of some remodeled video stores in town were projecting light out for half a mile. Mr. Barnes replied that he did not believe illumination was signage. That could be dealt with in other criteria of the LDGS as a separate issue. Member Carroll commented that in the compliance or amortization issue, there are a number of ways that could be handled and he would like to see several options they could look at.