Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201000005 Legacy Document 2010-10-15 (4)SIGN ROUNDTABLE - May 13, 2010 Comments of Attendees Window signs • Consider safety issues related to window signs. • Exempt all window signs from regulation. • Windows shouldn't be completely covered with signs. o Maybe 25 -50% could be covered, with total coverage allowed for temporary signs, but not if it is the only window. • Is distance an issue? • Window sign regulations shouldn't be different in or out of the Entrance Corridors. • Window signs of 9 square feet are a problem given distance and speed. • Predictability is important. Temporary signs • Increase temporary signs. 0 8 at 15 days o More than 60 days 0 90 -120 days • Sales typically extend for 30 days. • Offer 1 permit per year, good for any 60 days throughout the year. Business owners can self regulate. They can notify the county be email to when the sign will be up. • Having to pull a temporary sign down for a day is silly. • We need opportunities to advertise more events. • How does this get regulated in a subdivision? • Having 40 individual temporary signs along the highway is a problem. • Look into the type of comprehensive sign packages that the city approves for shopping centers, like Seminole Square, where all aspects of permanent and temporary signs are established, using flexible regulations. (Some type of management is needed when you reach a certain scale.) Anchor signs • Sign area and height should be increased to account for distance, speed, legibility. • Make adjustments to allow for competition with non - conforming signs. • Overall height and size need to be increased. • Increase from 32 to 40 square feet. • Even 40 square feet is small. • Freestanding signs should be 15 -20' tall. • Franchises have an advantage over local businesses (regarding trademark /logo recognition). • Make allowances for rolling topography — go with an average height above road surface. Wall signs • Wall sign height should be increased. Maybe go with a distance below the roofline rather than a maximum height. Setbacks • Let the line of sight regulate the setback requirement. Be more flexible with "entrance walls" and other entrance features on which signs can be attached. Signs on entrance walls should be allowed if the sign meets the setback; the wall itself doesn't have to meet the setback. (This will have to be coordinated with the regulation regarding maximum combined size of sign and support structure not exceeding 2.5 times the maximum allowable sign size.) General • There was general agreement with the suggestions for: • Increasing sign area requirement for CO and C1 districts to 1.5 square foot per linear foot. • Reducing the square footage requirement for anchor signs at shopping centers to 50,000 square feet. • Not reducing the allowable signage of a receiving parcel for off -site signage • Changing the maximum sign area in the PUD from 24 to 32 square feet. • Increasing the limit on multiple tenant signs to 40 square feet in the C1, HC and PDSC districts. • Increasing the height of wall and freestanding signs. • Eliminating the SP requirement for tenants on off -site anchor signs. • Increasing the size of freestanding signs to enable tenants more square footage. • Making sign setbacks consistent for all districts. It would be useful to have an approved sign drawing "template" that clearly identifies the sign information required and how /where it should appear on the drawing. Note: • The issue regarding definition of directional signs and exempting some from the SP requirement was not fully understood by the group and was not discussed. Summary and Minutes from 2nd Sign Ordinance Roundtable on 6/29/10: Flexibility and factors to consider: As much as possible, adding new regulations that would allow staff some flexibility within the sign ordinance would be helpful. Factors that could be considered for more flexible regulations are topography, vegetation, density of the area, speed limit, and lighting. For example, the BZA considers special use permits for off -site signs when topography or vegetation would cause an on- site sign to be ineffective in communicating its message. Perhaps a new regulation would enable staff to decrease the setback or increase the height of proposed on -site signs when topography, vegetation, multiple easements, etc. cause even on -site signs to be ineffective? Guiding philosophy: Our considerations for amendments should be viewed within a spectrum that assumes the most basic function of a sign is to provide information about location: Visitors unfamiliar with the area can understand the location. Signs are used for more for advertising than information. Simply increasing the total number of signs or the overall size of signs is not a solution. Predictability is what people are looking for. Bad signage is kind of like obscene material - - you know it when you see it. Administrative /procedural improvements: An expedited, one -stop review process that takes place on a certain time every week would be helpful. Do more to advise /educate applicants about the application process by: 1. Showing examples of a completed application 2. Taking a fresh look at forms to make them easier to understand /fill out a. Include FAQs, like "How do I measure street frontage ?" 3. Alerting applicants to potential problems posed by landscaping, topography, site restrictions 4. Alerting applicants to potential solutions such as anchor signs, regular landscape maintenance, minor amendments Specific sign comments: Window signs — questions surrounding the "safety" justification for regulating them; just allow no more than 50% to simplify it. An electronic message sign that could also be used for Amber Alerts, weather /traffic information would be nice. There is objective scientific data that could be used to amend the sign ordinance. Opaque backgrounds on signs need to be eliminated because they are difficult to read and give the impression that the establishment is closed. SIGN ROUNDTABLE MINUTES - June 29, 2010, 5:30 PM Ron Higgins gave an introduction and provided background on the process to date. o He identified the zoning text amendments that were already under consideration. o He posted the Resolution of Intent that was adopted by the BOS after the January 6, 2010 action plan. • He stated that the purpose of today's meeting was to solicit comments on the sign ordinance. • He reviewed the schedule and next steps. He stated that : -- all information collected from today's meeting will be assembled in July. -- an ARB work session is schedule for August 16. -- work with county attorney's office will take place in Summer and Fall. -- another roundtable will be held when we have a draft ZTA. -- we could be before the Planning Commission December 7, 2010 and the Board of Supervisors January 5, 2011. Ron reviewed some of the ZTA ideas: increase the number of temporary signs allowed; exempt window signs; reduce the square footage minimum on anchor signs; revise the off -site sign regulation related to the receiving parcel; increase the maximum sign area in the PUD district; increase the limit on multiple tenant signs to 40 sf in the C1, HC, and PDSC districts; increase the height limit for wall signs; eliminate the SP requirement for tenant off -site signs in planned developments; expedite sign approval procedures. Jeff Werner, PEC, wanted to know what the remedy is, referencing the list of comments from the last meeting. He mentioned the example of the Stereotypes sign with the tree /visibility problem. Ron noted the issue of having a second freestanding sign on same site. Jeff said the business owner put the sign where it was recommended, then the site plan was done with planting. It was stated that the sign doesn't physically have to be in that location. He could move the sign. It was suggested that a modification be allowed based on landscaping. Jeff asked what the remedy would be. It was noted that an appeal of an ARB decision goes to the BOS. But the business owner could just move the sign. Or maybe a comprehensive review could be done to accommodate that sort of issue. Jeff stated that he was getting at predictability and standardization, but he also hears "bigger, brighter, taller, and larger are needed ". What is that based on? He wasn't sure how to address that. Ron said staff will continue to wrestle with the predictability issue. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, brought up Hollymead Town Center, noting that when it came through there was a discussion for Target to have their sign seen from Rt. 29 and the PC wanted a buffer of trees that would obscure the sign. He also noted the Penske truck sign near his office. He said he can't see that sign and explained that the reason money is spent on signs is so the business can be found. It is about wayfinding. No one knows there are businesses in the back of a shopping center because they can't have a wayfinding sign where customers can see it. He said he didn't know if Illumination would be discussed. The ideas of customers finding the business is what businesses want -- not just bigger, brighter. Jeff noted that traveling through Greene County you see signs everywhere, and it is noise, just like Rt. 3 into Fredericksburg. There is nothing appealing about that. What are we shooting for? What achieves Neil's point? Randy Smith said the opaque background requirement should be eliminated. Translucent backgrounds are needed. The Tip Top restaurant sign is an example. Signs are easier to read with a translucent background. Ron noted that there is scientific data available that has been used as the basis for deciding how big a sign needs to be at various traffic speeds. The Federal Highway Administration provides some of that information. There are limited roads in Albemarle County where you can go 55 mph. We probably can't base it all on one study, like the PA highways study. It was noted that sign clients want the sign to be legible. Research is objective and scientific. Some research only deals with size of the sign and the size of letters. There are lots of additional factors to be considered. We are looking for a basis, but not one that is singularly focused. Morgan Butler, SELC, said he wanted to build off what Neil said. For him it comes down to the fact that signs are meant to help identify businesses, but we want to avoid getting around the prohibition on billboards. There is potential to undermine other goals of the county with these ordinance changes. The idea of allowing the redefining of off -site signs in the Neighborhood Model District to allow for signs to identify businesses not on the street -front makes sense as long as you limit the quantity. Easing height limits makes sense in terms of the Albemarle Place proffer changes that were just approved. If a building is further away and behind another building, that makes sense. Process improvements make sense. One -stop approval makes sense. If the reason for changing sign sizes is simply to make it like somewhere else, that starts to creep away from "here's how you find us ". The same thing applies to more signs. If people are competing for the biggest sign it becomes clutter and is ultimately harder to find. Morgan asked for clarification regarding anchor sign issues. The Kohl's sign was used as an example. He asked, "Who gets the anchor sign ?" The property manager decides. If the threshold is reduced, you would allow smaller shopping centers to have anchor signs. The result would help the smaller guy. Most shopping centers are already over 100,000 sf. A lot of people don't like the blue VDOT signs. We can get a better product by making the anchor sign availability known. We don't know the result yet. What about consolidating tenant signs into one sign? Just allowing more 6 sf signs. You could have a wall of signs the way the ordinance is right now. Many developers have said they don't want to do that. The push for anchor signs came from county staff. Neil says that government placing where the signs should go isn't helpful. Build in flexibility, if you limit the number of signs, to allow the property owner to choose the position. Ron pointed out that the county doesn't tell the property owner where the sign has to go. It was noted that easements and setbacks limit sign location. Randy said that on Rt. 29 where Brown's is across from the mall, VDOT moved the lines so now you can't work on the signs in that easement. He said we should be able to put a sign back in the same area. How does the county help out in that situation? In a perfect world we could catch all of these things. Jeff noted that there are procedural issues, and circumstances with collisions of interests. He asked what is it the county needs to do to not restrict economic vitality? What do the folks what the county to do? Ron said we are looking at the regulations to see if they are doing what they need to do. Sandy with Price Kia commented on the setback issue, noting that his sign is located behind trees. His sign needs to be taller to be seen. He said that safety is an issue. You only see the sign 5' before the entrance, which isn't enough time to turn. You can see it well when traffic is bumper to bumper. We need to concentrate on safety. Neil said he isn't convinced that the ordinance is designed for safety, noting that car dealers might have nice vinyl window signs for their new model cars. There is no requirement to have that much window. The ordinance is for aesthetics. What is the goal of the ordinance - is it safety or aesthetics? Can something be done to identify that balance? Jeff said PEC doesn't care what someone puts in their window. What goes on inside a shopping center isn't an issue. The concern is from the community right -of -way. Randy noted that at the last meeting there was concern expressed about fire and police safety, but he spoke with a fire official who said that if they need to open a door to see a fire there isn't much of a fire. It was stated that window signs are a way to draw customers; for example, snow crab legs on sale. Regarding illumination, Jeff said that lit signs should meet the lighting ordinance, then they're OK. It was asked if back lighting creates more visibility for signs? One attendee stated that it all depends. Randy said that opaque background kills the sign. Someone mentioned that the requirement is unique to Albemarle County. When non - residents drive through, they aren't accustomed to it, and they may think the business is closed. Someone else pointed out that the tenant signs in the Seminole Square freestanding sign rotate every 6 months. Jeff said he doesn't shop somewhere simply because he sees a sign on the side of the road. Neil says there are a number of Rack Room Shoes in town, but he only knows where one is because of the sign. One attendee encouraged staff to work towards the comprehensive sign concept. Randy noted the Rio Hill freestanding sign problem. With the law firm on the corner, the sign is in the wrong place. It confuses people. Morgan noted that improvements in technology may change or eliminate these issues. He said that he needs signs now, but GPS units eliminate the need for many signs. Some responded that Grandma and Grandpa won't know how to use that technology. Electronic message boards were discussed. They would allow all tenants to be advertised. In Harrisonburg you can have them but the message interval must be at least 30 seconds. These could also be used in emergencies. One attendee noted that aesthetics are important, although safety is easier to defend. Without a focus on aesthetics, you'll find that the community is bombarded with signs. The ordinance in Indianapolis reinforces that. Gateways become cluttered. Morgan stated that the ordinance sets out different purposes. Aesthetics is one of them. It relates to window signs. There is a visual aspect to it. Stewart Wright noted that in the EC you are limited to one 9 sf window sign. The ARB could be bombarded with requests for 9 sf signs. He doesn't want to completely unleash it, but maybe that is something the county doesn't want to regulate. He suggests 50% of window coverage maximum. It was noted that is what Charlottesville does. If you regulate it, at least do it in a way that is easy to regulate. That makes sense. It was suggested that we know what we don't want. We don't want Greene County or Rt. 3 into Fredericksburg. Modifications can be made. They are done everywhere. The public face is what people are concerned about. Bruce Bateman said that he is interested in the issue due to the aesthetics. He doesn't want the aesthetics damaged due to competition. Let's not get into race of advertising shown by signs. There were questions about the color palette that the ARB approves. It was clarified that the ARB reviews colors, but has not established a pre- approved color palette. Randy said that submittals should be simplified. There is no need for multiple color copies. JT Newberry asked if there are signs seen elsewhere that people want to see here or don't want to see here? Jeff acknowledged the community's sense of place. He said that uniformity and neatness of design is where he would define aesthetics. Randy said that Talley Anchor manufactures signs. We don't like to make an ugly sign. We want to be proud of what we make. Neil had a problem with the uniformity issue. He said a former member of the ARB said, regarding the extension of the Rio Road EC, that the Kangaroo sign is one we don't want. It is the bright red gas station. Money is spent on logos that might be considered aesthetically unappealing. There is concern about content. A business should have the ability to utilize its logo. Hilton Head goes too far. Logos should be respected. Sandy said that the Bassett "going out of business" sign was so huge. We don't want that. Stewart said that the planned developments at the west end of Richmond have one small sign out by road for a shopping center that is set back % mile from road. It is hard to know where a particular business is if you aren't already familiar with the shopping center. You need to know where the business is located, but there you won't see individual signs. Jeff suggested: don't just say to be economically viable we just need more, bigger signs. He is concerned that the BOS will do that. Flexibility in certain cases is needed.