Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSign Ordinance Issues from Committee -I 0 (-c7 � cQ 1 sv. & -(' 1 r1 3. "Signs must comply with the approved Unified Center architectural scheme, and must be of a similar design and identical in lighting and style of construction." How about this instead? "Signs must comply with the approved Unified Center architectural scheme, and must be of a similar design, lighting and mounting/installation method." The reason this statement needs to be vague is so that we have the flexibility to allow different centers to be creative and have different types of signs and lighting styles. However, within the same center, the signs need to be similar. We don't feel it is necessary to spell out what type of lighting (LED, neon, external, internal, reverse lit) or mounting method (raceway or flush mount) as to"revise any ambiguous terms and descriptions." It needs to be similar to what is already installed and approved. So, my question is how do you propose to change the wording of the requirement so we are more clear, yet flexible enough to allow for all centers and their different requirements? I think we should write it to the audience. In this case a business owner. So how about this. "Your sign may also need to comply with your location's architectural scheme. If you think you are in a Unified Center(defined in definitions) please consult the property management company or City to find out if additional sign requirements apply". This will be taken care of with Exhibit Y. 7. What exactly needs to be refined from the Temporary sign section? Which kinds of temporary signs should be illuminated in your opinion?What is the need for illuminated temporary signs? We are having a hard time grasping this "need" and are fearful of the temporary sign becoming more permanent in nature._.as many developers take advantage of now. First I would stick to your guns that a temporary sign is for 1 year or less. Any sign over 1 year becomes a permanent sign regardless of type, materials, etc. I suggest refining this section to make what temporary signs are allowed very specific and eliminate the need for permits on these types of signs. If it is a true temporary sign, and falls within the ordinance limits, I propose that no permits be needed. If it is not a true temporary sign then it should fall into the permanent sign guidelines, permit needs, etc. I can go over the nit-picky details with you but generally I would suggest combining the sections (such as subdivision and non-residential construction) that specify the same type of sign criteria (both allow 32 sq.ft., 8' height, ground signs). These have been combined. Regarding lighting, let me know what the concern is (not sure what "temporary signs becoming more permanent in nature" means. In my mind either is is a temp sign (use for 1 year or less) or it is a permanent sign (and falls under those restrictions)). To me there are two main issues. If the temporary sign needs to be lighted to be seen (like a banner in lue of a permanent sign) why not allow it to be lighted? Secondly. how do you define an illuminated temporary sign? Is a canopy light that shines on a banner an illuminated temp sign? We said it was not in our meeting. If that is not a problem then tell me a bit more about what a problem would be? Does that make sense? The issue we are thinking of are temporary real estate signs being purposefully lit by ground mounted lights or reflective surfaces. We do not want these signs to become like (low level) billboards along U.S. 31 or any of the other roads. If the other temporary signs are lit incidentally by gooseneck lighting or ground mounted lights that were previously existing, we are ok with that. What we cannot have are temporary signs being constructed with light sources within them. I have not had an issue thus far regarding temporary signs not being lit and I do not see it likely becoming an issue. 9. I believe we are aiming for a description of design materials for our permanent monument/ground signs. You know that we prefer our signs to be well constructed and not have a"temporary" look to them. Now we need to define what this is. We require that monument signs match the architectural style of the building they accompany. Typically this would be brick, stone or other masonry materials. We would like to see all monument signs have some sort of base, side supports, middle sign area and top cap. You mentioned these ideals were restricting to other materials that are faux masonry. How durable are these materials, how common are they, and how much less expensive are they? How would you propose we write that flexibility into the ordinance? First I would suggest staying with the term "monument" sign as "ground" sign is too vague. I understand the desire to have the sign match the building but what if the building is an odd material (lap board siding) that would make a sign look funny if made of the same material. I don't think there is terminology that is specific enough to be part of the ordinance regarding the sign "look"that would not be vague or confusing. I would suggest a text similar to "monument signs (as defined and example pictures provided) must be of similar look to a masonry sign (brick, stone, stucco, and dryvit are appearance options)and comply with the height and square footage requirements as noted in the appendix tables. Please note that only sign panel area (that area that encompasses the sign text) calculates into the sign area. Columns, bases, and caps must comply with height requirements but do not calculate into the sign area limitations". Does that work? Perhaps we can include in the Exhibit Y a note about the sign square footage is only calculated by the sign face and that structural supports do not apply. We are still working on the design requirements but will take into consideration the underlined portion above. 1. We are going to stick with the current format of the sign ordinance, but will create a user friendly guide to include on the web and in the application package. I will create an instruction sheet to go with the sign permit application, as well as a list of commercial centers with pre-approved sign packages. In the instructions, I will give links to the website and where they can find the sign ordinance, the application, examples of other applications and sign packages. 2. We are gathering a list of all of the developments that currently have sign packages. We hope to have this list available online. I am currently working on this list. Some packages are online already. They will be referred to in the instruction sheet, not the ordinance itself. 3. We are still working on clearing up some of the terms, and may need additional suggestions from the committee. We are working on the use of the word Frontage. All other issues (design requirement related) should be resolved with illustrations and the new Exhibit Y. 4. We are looking into adding some of the things that are brought up at Plan Commission but not specifically in the ordinance, such as color or materials; however we do not want to restrict creativity either. In our design guidelines, we plan on limiting color choices and options—within reason. The process will be explained in the instruction sheet. 5. Conflicting information in the ordinance will be edited. If you know of any specific conflicts, please let us know. It has been done! 6. We are exploring the possibility of taking signs out of the regular plan commission process, but feel it is important that sign packages are reviewed by the Plan Commission in context of Architectural Design and recognize there may still be a need for their input. We are not to this point yet. First priority is updating the Ordinance itself, establishing design guidelines/requirements, then taking on the issue of Plan commission or no Plan Commission. Signs will not be dropped from the ADLS process. It may be handled administratively in an application that is combined with the sign permit application. A combined application for ADLS and permi' may alleviate costs— but it has not been discussed at this time. 7. We discussed the ban on illuminating temporary signs and we have contacted Joel to ask for more clarification as to which signs he would like to see illuminated, and any suggestions he has for wording. Temporary signs are not to be intently and directly illumination. Indirect or incidental lighting on temporary signs is ok. This has not been an issue before. The committee is only noticing this pre-existing requirement because we took it out of each section (to eliminate redundancy) and put it in a common section at the beginning. 8. The section on Use Variance signs has been taken out of the ordinance, and if a use variance is granted, then they will just follow the sign requirements that pertain to their use (single tenant, institutional, etc). Exactly. 9. We have contacted Joel for suggestions in regards to refining types and materials. Done. 10. Institutional and Recreational signs have been combined into one section. Yes! 11. We are working on changing the wording for unified centers and multi-tenant buildings so that hopefully it is clearer. Still working on it. 12. In regards to the size of signs based on lineal feet of frontage, we are struggling to find a simple solution. We understand the concerns of the committee, but also feel that distance from right-of-way and length of building frontage are important variables. This may need more discussion by the committee. We feel the sign chart works ok for now. Updated comments 10 September 2007 Goals 1. Create a fair, functional permitting process that minimizes processing time. Time may be reduced by combining ADLS and the sign permit for existing buildings. New buildings will still have to go through the regular ADLS process and that time will not be able to be reduced. Currently, people may think it takes a long time because they are unaware of the deadlines that exist. I am not sure how to alleviate this. I don't think I will be able to contact every land lord in town to let them know of the process. The applicant will simply have to be proactive in contacting either the Chamber or the City of Carmel to find out what applications, fees, deadlines, etc. there are involved in getting a business going. 2. Eliminate the time-consuming and expensive backlog of signage discussions at Plan Commission and committee levels. Currently, most sign cases are not that time consuming. The ones that are time consuming are the controversial ones that do not meet our sign ordinance. Hopefully, with the additional design guidelines, it will be more clear for business owners what they can and cannot have. 3. Eliminate subjective approval criteria and communicate verbally and pictorially what businesses need to do to gain approval. We hope to do this with the design guidelines. We plan on adding pictures. 4. Reduce the categories and simplify the terminology. Provide adequate depictions of sign opportunities (a sign "catalog") so that businesses can see what their options are. Some categories have been reduced or eliminated. Sign photos will be included so that business owners will have a graphic representation of what they can have based on what type of building they are located in. 5. Grant the Department of Community Services the power to approve signs that meet the published requirements. We hope to do this. 6. Write a sign ordinance that allows for the removal of the"S"from ADLS. The sign ordinance should cover the city's rules on signs. The S will not be removed from ADLS. All new construction will still have to submit signage in their building plans. Existing buildings may be allowed to have administrative approval of ADLS. We are working on this. 7. Provide opportunities for multi-tenant commercial projects to avoid the long, difficult ADLS process. Since they do not know who the tenants will be, nor the breakdown in square footage per tenant, they are typically forced to apply for every signage opportunity available and the are later backed into an ADLS amendment process that is time- consuming, expensive and unfriendly to business. We hope the new design guidelines and combined ADLS/sign permit for existing buildings will alleviate this. 8. Create a section on the permitting process telling business owners what they need to do step by step. Forms needed should be identified and specific information about where they're to be delivered provided. There should also be an indication of who can be contacted for questions. An instruction sheet will be created. Specific to the first draft of the ordinance changes: 25-07-01-01a General Guidelines. 1. "All signs require Administrator approval". This implies all signs must be submitted for approval. This is not the case as currently written. Yes it is. All signs must at the very least, be approved by me, the sign permit specialist. 3. and some may need additional review by the plan commission". This is too vague and should be eliminated. The reason the ordinance exists is to avoid the need for plan commission review. It has been eliminated. 4. " and real estate signs over 6 sq. ft". Do we really want to require a permit for these? The language is vague; you can't figure out what criteria would cause the sign to not be approved. This is intended for large parcels of real estate. We do not go out and measure each of the different realtors"for sale"signs. 5. "Temporary signs may not be illuminated". Recommend this be deleted. If the business has a grand opening banner on the building and wants it to be seen at night by using a ground light, why is that any different than a permanently lighted sign? If it is indirectly illuminated, that is ok. It can not be constructed to have lighting within it. -03 Exempted Signs. 1. Eliminate most of these examples. They only add to confusion and argument on definitions. The list should only include very specific signs. For example the text could read "Parking signs, integral signs, and private directional signs less than 3 sq. ft." "Address number signs (see chart)" and "Public building signs." We feel this section is fine as is. -04 Prohibited Signs section q- v. Vehicle signs. The issue is not size but those who place graphics on a vehicle and park it at a business as a sign. Current court cases have upheld vehicle graphics as long as the vehicle is actually used in the business (assumes the vehicle is drivable, etc.). The ordinance addresses this issue in the preceding sections. Recommend elimination of this section; clean up the language to indicate that you can't have a vehicle serve as your business sign. Need to look at this some more. We have cleaned up the prohibited sign list to be more clear and less repetitive. 25.07.02 Permanent Signs 1. Standardize the permitted sign styles for sections -01 thru -06 (residential related signs). Combine these types into one category. We have combined into three sections. We feel this is adequate. 2. Eliminate section -07 Special Use Signs and combine with another section? Most SU sign requests are for churches. Why not use the same standard for churches that we allow for single tenant buildings? Done. 3. If distance from right of way is essential, then the City needs to be able to provide businesses with where the right of way is. Something like"right of way as supplied by the City of Carmel's engineering department." Right of way determination can be found online on our GIS site. 5. -08(Single Tenant Building) Expand the Sign Classification section to reference specific drawings and three sign categories (panel or cabinet: individual letters; monument sign). Provide drawings with specifications to eliminate the guesswork. Shorten the number and type to one sign per public road frontage with a maximum of three. Done. Ground Sign specifications would fall into the chart and no longer be in each specific building type section. Done. Delete the Copy section, These standards can be covered under the sign type chart. We will not be deleting the copy section. It is necessary to regulate copy. 6. Beginning with 09(Single Tenant) and through to—14(Old Meridian District) Rewrite this to basically say"here are the signs allowed." Change the references to square footage to percentages of space. The specification of size ranges can have unintended consequences. For example, if an owner has a 1200 square-foot tenant and a 6000 square foot tenant in the same building, the smaller tenant gets a 30 sq. ft. sign and the 6000 a 45 sq.ft. sign, at a 5-50 foot right of way range. Assuming a two-foot height on the sign, the 6000 sq. ft. tenant would have a sign 22.5 feet wide for 100 feet of frontage. A sign package eliminates this problem. Eliminate the sections for location, design, copy, and illumination as they will be in the sign catalog section (e.g. "If you have an illuminated sign, reference the lighting section.") They will not be deleted. Location is fine. Exhibit Y will be used for design. Copy and illumination will stay as is. Define all uses so "special use" can be eliminated. Deleted. In multi-tenant buildings, one or more signs per building face per tenant should be allowed. A business can have three building faces: one facing the parking lot; one facing the street and one end cap. No. Only one per street frontage. Projecting or blade signs are permissible to the extent buildings can adequately space them; however, all signs should be described in the catalog. They can be used in multi-tenant mixed use buildings, or if a sign package or overlay zone specifically allows them. 7. -12 (Window signs). Shorten this section and improve the definition. A window sign "is any sign affixed to the window or window frame." Recommend that the total combined square footage of all window signage be no more than 50% of the particular window pane. 30% is plenty. Eliminate the temporary or permanent language (they are all temporary by definition). Illuminated or non-illuminated can be eliminated (with current technology the difference is hard to tell). We are speaking mainly of exposed neon signs. We will keep it as is. 25.07.03 Temporary signs 1. Combine sections -01 and -02. The specs are the same. The time use for signs on lots remaining is the main difference and is oddly detailed. Can't we just say "the sign must be removed with no more than 5% of the lots remain"? Done. 2. -03 (Real Estate Signs). Not recommending we require permits for larger lot sizes as in the new general standards. We need a sign size for business lots over 10 acres (32 sq.ft. is the common size). Yes, I plan on adding this section. Make the sign height for five acres or less 6'. 5' is fine. It also makes best use of an 8' post going 2' into the ground. 3. -05, -06, -07(additional signs). Eliminate this section by grouping into one specific to the issues. Done 25.07.04-03 Interim Signage Pending Permanent Sign—c. The maximum sign area should not exceed the area of the applied permanent sign. Approved is fine. They need to be approved first. Also, if a board sign is defined as a temporary awning sign, the ordinance should specify that one is allowed per business per frontage. The closeness of the sign to the building can be specified. What is a board sign? 25.07.06—Legal Non-Conforming Signs. Following the last rewrite, there was supposed to be a list of legal non-conforming signs submitted, notice given to owners and procedures for appeal given. What is the status of that list? If a sign has been in place for more than five years without any notice of violation, under what set of circumstances can the City require those signs to be removed or changed?We are working on completing that list. Sign Catalog—taken care of with instruction sheet. The creation of a sign catalog would provide an easy-to-use reference for any business attempting to investigate signage requirements. All elements should be available on line and easily accessible through the city's web site. • Each zoned area (e.g. Old Town, Arts & Design District, 31 Overlay, etc.) would have its own section which would include the following: o Map of area included. o Types of signs useable in that area (e.g. blade, hanging, monument, etc.) including photos/illustrations of each type. o Size requirements with examples. o Number requirements with examples. • Application Process Manual o Step by step description of the permitting process. o Copies of all forms with instructions on how they should be completed and to whom they should be delivered. o Contact names, numbers and emails for questions. I came into this conversation with some goals that I think the revised ordinance should pursue. think might be helpful to have a list of goals to work from. Some of your emails have changed this list. Please feel free to add more. 1. The business owner should know that he/she is submitting a sign permit request that meets the ordinance and that the permit request will be approved. That is what my job is to do— help them meet the ordinance. To do this we need to reduce categories and simplify terminology. Done. If we have a functional ordinance permit requests that meet the ordinance should be a "rubber stamp" process. We are hoping to make that happen with the combined ADLS/sign permit process. 2. The ordinance must eliminate subjective approval criteria. Specific text and pictures should show acceptable sign types that includes desired details. For example, if the committees want monument signs to have limestone caps on the columns then the ordinance should state that and pictures should show it. If this is not a criteria then it should not be added later in the permit approval process. Photos and design guidelines/criteria are being created. 3. Allow signage to meet business needs. Retail establishments place great emphasis on signage options. The ordinance should allow these within reason. Likewise, office complexes need less signage_ Signs are used for two purposes, directional (find the place) and advertising (sell the stuff). We prefer informational over advertising. Non illuminated window signs are for advertising. If a retail business (who wants advertising related signs) chooses a location that is not retail (ordinance allows primarily directional signs) there should be no complaints about sign restrictions. Exactly. I also think we need a section on the permit process (what the business owner is supposed to do). Instruction sheet will take care of this. 1. Three forms are needed and are to be delivered (can we take fax or email? Why not?) to the office located at (most people don't know where to go). 2. Indicate on the form who is to be contacted for questions as well as for permit pick up and payment. (there is current confusion on who gets called (the business owner or sign contractor) when the permit is ready for pick up). It is up to the applicant. I am not going to require one or the other to pay me. 3. Permits must be kept on file by the business owner (not the sign contractor). Many business owners do not have their original permit. It is the sign company's responsibility to give this back to them if they are the ones picking up the final permit. ADLS permits, as related to signs, are another issue needing addressed. For signage purposes can ADLS requests mimic the sign ordinance? The landlord would be responsible for controlling sign requirements that are more strict than the ordinance. Why do we have 2 areas (ADLS and the sign ordinance) for signage type requirements that the City is responsible for maintaining? The City should enforce the ordinance. The landlord should enforce their own specific sign criteria. The City enforces signs. The landlord in the ADLS process determines what size and type of signs are allowed. They are not always keen on following up with tenants and telling them the proper procedure for getting signs permitted. The landlord should know the process and help its tenants. Here are my preliminary thoughts on the draft sign ordinance. 25.07.02-08 Single Tenant Building d) "Six feet for signs located 5-300 feet from right of way. . ." This language is used throughout the draft. There's a big difference between 5 feet and 300 feet! Six foot signs are fine for 5 feet but too small for 300 feet distances. Ground signs are rarely located far from a road. 6' is plenty. 25.07.02-10 Multi-Tenant Multi-Level Building f) Design "Signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design. . ." Does this mean similar color? What if corporate logos are not the same color? Why should retail tenants have to have the same color signage? Businesses invest significant sums into their corporate identities. I have difficulty with the city deciding that someone's logo color or design is inappropriate. Exhibit Y will hopefully resolve this. 25.07.02-13 Old Town Carmel f) Color& Design - "Signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design and identical in lighting. color, height of sign area and style of construction." I've got the same problem here with specifying logo color. Similar is pretty subjective. What I think is similar may not be what someone else thinks is similar. We will become less subjective when our guidelines/requirements are made. I'm presuming that although landscaping requirements have been removed form the individual descriptions, they will be included separately in some addendum. I need some sign drawings too. I'm sure Joel is familiar with the nomenclature, but I'm not! We do need to create a landscaping visual guide. Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, it is included in the front guidelines section. A number of goals were established based on discussions with Mo and among staff. They are as follows: 1. Reduce subjective Plan Commission decision making for sign approvals Yes, we would like to do that with our design guidelines. 2. Establish sign design criteria ditto. 3. Delegate to DOCS staff sign design approval yes that is the plan. 4. Eliminate wasted time for sign approvals ditto. 5. Eliminate redundant and/or conflicting sign ordinance provisions done. ache)]Boone' Sign Permit Specialist Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/communityservice.html Message Page 1 of 3 Boone, Rachel M. From: Joel Hall [jhall @signaramacarmel.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:13 AM To: Boone, Rachel M. Subject: RE: Sign Ordinance questions Rachel, Sorry for the delay and getting this to you so close to our meeting. End of the year project rushes have made for a busy week. We can talk more on the phone if you want to go over this more quickly. See you email below. I added my thoughts to each line. Thanks for keeping the process moving along! Thanks again, Joel cell number 989-9586 Joel Hall, Vice President Sign-A-Rama Visit our two locations! 598 West Carmel Dr. Suite B Carmel,IN 46032 317-575-1805 fax 317-575-1825 www.signaramacarmel.com 7866 E. 96th St. Fishers, IN 46037 317-841-3524 fax 317-841-3541 www.signaramafishers.com See our new ONLINE CATALOG here Original Message From: Boone, Rachel M. [mailto:rboone @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:22 PM To: Joel Hall Subject: Sign Ordiance questions Good afternoon Joel, I hope you've had a good weekend. We have been discussing the issues brought up at our last meeting and the things we need more guidance on are the following: language for the design section as to not be "ambiguous," the overall issues with temporary signs, especially lighting, and how to describe our preferred building materials so that it is not restricting to allow for alternative materials. 3. "Signs must comply with the approved Unified Center architectural scheme, and must be of a similar design and identical in lighting and style of construction." How about this instead? "Signs must comply with the approved Unified Center architectural scheme, and must be of a similar design, lighting and mounting/installation method." The reason this statement needs to be vague is so that we have the flexibility to allow different centers to be creative and have different types of signs and lighting styles. However, within the same center, the signs need to be similar. We don't feel it is necessary to spell out what type of lighting (LED, neon, external, internal, reverse lit) or mounting method (raceway or flush mount) as to"revise any ambiguous terms and descriptions." It needs to be similar to what is already installed and approved. So, my question is how do you propose to change the wording of the requirement so we are more clear, yet flexible enough to allow for all centers and their different requirements? I think • 0.` we should write it to the audience. In this case a business owner. So how about this "Your sign may also �i(1 need to comply with your location's,acc 3+► scheme. If you think you are in a Unified Center (defined in definitions) please consult the pIoperty management company or City to find out if additional sign Ali 1,A 11!1!1? • • • • 4 . • • • • • • • • Message Page 2 of 3 requirements apply". 7. What exactly needs to be refined from the Temporary sign section? Which kinds of temporary signs should be illuminated in your opinion? What is the need for illuminated temporary signs? We are having a hard time grasping this "need" and are fearful of the temporary sign becoming more permanent in nature... as many developers take advantage of now. First I would stick to your guns that a temporary sign is for 1 year or less. Any sign over 1 year becomes a permanent sign regardless of type, materials, etc. I suggest refining this section to make what temporary signs are allowed very specific and eliminate the need for permits on these types of signs. If it is a true temporary sign, and falls within the ordinance limits, I propose that no permits be needed. If it is not a true temporary sign then it should fall into the permanent i ye- ___Sign�uidelines, permit needs, etc. I can go over the nit-picky details with you but generally I would eL 11 W suggest-combining the sections (such as subdivision and non-residential construction) that specify the �IAP same type of sign criteria (both allow 32 sq.ft., 8' height, ground signs). Regarding lighting, let me know Sti 7i,J PP"" what the concern is (not sure what"temporary sig is becoming more permanent in nature" means. In my o1_ mind either is is a temp sign (use for 1 year or less) or it is a permanent sign (and falls under those 1.4 ri restrictions)). To me there are two main issues. If the temporary sign needs to be lighted to be seen (like (�Y t.A 'i el a banner in lue of a permanent sign) why not allow it to be lighted? Secondly, how do you define an ,5 g-10 1141 4-- illuminated temporary sign? Is a canopy light that shines on a banner an illuminated temp sign? We said it `n was not in our meeting. If that is not a problem then tell me a bit more about what a problem would be? riae- I,J2,AAFt Does that make sense? 21‘6jH 615.4/v(-9 9. I believe we are aiming for a description of design materials for our permanent monument/ground signs. Li Wy. You know that we prefer our signs to be well constructed and not have a "temporary" look to them. Now we fyi."G ! need to define what this is. We require that monument signs match the architectural style of the building .L t,iv( i they accompany. Typically this would be brick, stone or other masonry materials. We would like to see all ; c 1 2 monument signs have some sort of base, side supports, middle sign area and top cap. You mentioned L . V' these ideals were restricting to other materials that are faux masonry. How durable are these materials, kff (`' how common are they, and how much less expensive are they? How would you propose we write that flexibility into the ordinance? First I would suggest "pith the tprr^ "mon'': ,ent" sign sign is too vague. I understand the desire to have the sign match the building but what if the building is an odd material (lap board siding)that would make a sign look funny if made of the same material_ I don't think there is terminology that is specific enough to be part of the ordinance regarding the sign "look" that would not be vague or confusing. I would suggest a text similar to "monuent signs (as define and example pictures provided) must be of similar look to a masonry(brick, stone, stucco, and dryvit are appearance options) and comply with the height and square footage requirements as noted in the appendix tables. Please note that only si n anel area (that area that encompasses the sign text) calculates into the sign area. Columns, bases, and aps must comply with height requirements but do not calculate into the sign area limitations". Does that work? d ir1.761 c(-( " I look forward to your comments and discussing them at the meeting on Monday, December 17th at 10:00 AM. Sincerely, Rachel Rct.c.hel Boo-vie' Sign Permit Specialist Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/communityservice.html r I A Y1(1V7 MEETING NOTES Revision to Carmel Sign Ordinance Department of Community Services & Carmel Chamber of Commerce Committee November 5, 2007 ATTENDEES: Mike Hollibaugh DOCS, Director Rachel Boone DOCS, Planner Adrienne Keeling DOCS, Planner Alexia K. Donahue-Wold DOCS, Planner Mo Merhoff CCC, President Joel Hall Signarama, CCC Representative David Fineberg Fineberg Group, CCC Representative Barbara Eden Carson Design Associates, CCC Represenatative V Discussed possibility for a new format- ordinance has legal implications and present format should be 1 maintained, with revisions to content that are indicated in drafts. Looking at developing a user friendly, in addition to the ordinance, that contains chart of requirements, permit form, illustrations, photos and definitions. Process for sign approval that is currently available will be reviewed, updated and included. /X/ Add reference to developmental packages (PUD. Unified Centers) for sign requiffements contained in 0 those packages that may su _ the sign ordinance. /U. Lp/7L'V ii t 3 Will try to revise an am igu� p erms and descriptions (such as 'cabinet signs', 'frontage'. 'similar in esign an i entical in lighting and style of construction') so the intent is clearly described. 4. / Talked about things that are not specifically in the ordinance, but are asked for by the Plan Commission -V and how the ordinance might be revised to help alleviate this occurring. ( - / c:t t� ; IV Conflicting information or requirements in the ordinance will be edited. 6./ Talked about dropping signs out of ADLS, but recognized the need for general, potential sign types and placement is better to have planned up front. Perhaps the level of detail for signs in ADLS should be clarified. Changing or adding signs to existing building is presently requiring both ADLS and Sign Permit -this is very costly. V Need to clarify Temporary Signs -Joel offered to help with wording to make this section more succinct and clear, while meeting the objectives of good planning. Talked about modifying the ban on illuminating temporary signs to allowing illumination under certain conditions (without allowing a 'temporary' sign to become 'permanent). �/, � /`, 8 Use Variance signs - needs definition — vil. )24' fMuf p 4' 8/ Permanent signs: talked about refining types and materials - exercising care to not restrict a well designed sign that fits with building or site, but becomes restricted simply because material is not listed in ordinance. 1/ Suggestion was discussed to combine Institutional and Recreational Use since requirements are the same for both. I I Unified Centers and Multi-Tenant Buildings- talked about the wording "similar design and identical lighting and style of construction" being refined to be clearer, less restrictive and more attuned to intent Also discussed referring to Development Packages again so if there is one in place the person applying for sign permit will seek to conform to those requirements and not waste time following the ordinance, which may be superseded by the development package. I2/ Talked about chart for size of signs based on lineal feet of frontage - suggestion made to make more �. incremental or use percentages. 8. The following dates were set to continue the process: Monday, December 10, 2007 next draft of ordinance will be sent to committee for review and comment. Monday, December 17, 2007 next meeting with DOCS and Committee will be held at 10:00 a.m. at DOCS office. Carmel Chamber Singular Focus, Shared Success November 2, 2007 To: Signage Aficionados From: Chamber Sign Group—Barbara Eden, David Fineberg, Joel Hall, Mo Merhoff Re: General comments on recent draft Although we have several comments on specific areas in the most recent sign ordinance draft, we also agreed on some remaining major concerns: • Although we understand a mandatory"standard city ordinance format" may exist, we still prefer a"catalog-type"document form. Our attempts to stay within the existing structure have presented too many consolidation and definition challenges, not to mention our view that the entire ordinance remains very user- unfriendly. • We still recommend an expanded drawing and sample section, so that businesses can see what it is they can do. To wit: here's how buildings are defined; here's an example of each; here's a map of the areas which have specific sign requirements; here's a list of the signs allowed for each structure type and each geographic area with accompanying photos of each, and finally, here's the step- by-step process you'll have to follow to obtain your sign. • Considerable vagueness remains, (e.g. "similar design"). Our view is that businesses are generally amenable to following the rules if they are provided with specific information. Otherwise they continue to spend time and considerable money trying to guess what's required. We look forward to discussing the draft in more detail with you as we continue the process. Page 1 of 1 Boone, Rachel M. From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:59 PM To: 'brandon @anacore.com' Subject: Sign requirements Brandon, Due to your frontage and setback, you will be allowed a 35 sq. ft. ground sign. Because of the 55' right of way, you will need a variance to place the sign closer to the road. The closest you will be able to place it is 5 ft. from the property line. The sign may have two faces and sit perpendicular to the road. It may not be taller than 6 ft. We do not include structural supports in the calculation of sign area. Here is a link to the applications you will need. http://www.ci.carmel.in,us/services/DOCS/DOCSA_htm First you must apply for a variance. It is called a Development Standards Variance and is located under the Board of Zoning Appeals title towards the bottom of the page. The next meeting date is November 26th. The Hearing Officer public notice must be to the Indianapolis Star by November 14 to meet the November 16th deadline. Once you have BZA approval, you need to get ADLS approval from the Plan Commission. The next Special Studies meeting you can go to is November 29th. The deadline for this application is November 19th. This application is first under Plan Commission applications at the above link called Application for Architectural Design, Lighting, and Signage (amendment). After you have ADLS approval, I can issue the sign permit. This application is a little further down the page and is (surprise!) called Sign Permit Application. C It would be best to turn in all of the applications at the same time, and that way I can get you on the agendas sooner rather than later. If you have any questions regarding any of the applications, please let me know. I know it seems like a lot, but unfortunately, it's all necessary. Have a good day! Rachel i ache,/ Boo e/ Sign Permit Specialist Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http//www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/communityservice.html 11/5/2007 Updated comments 10 September 2007 Goals 1. Create a fair, functional permitting process that minimizes processing time. 2. Eliminate the time-consuming and expensive backlog of signage discussions at Plan Commission and committee levels. 3. Eliminate subjective approval criteria and communicate verbally and pictorially what businesses need to do to gain approval. 4. Reduce the categories and simplify the terminology. Provide adequate depictions of sign opportunities (a sign "catalog") so that businesses can see what their options are. 5. Grant the Department of Community Services the power to approve signs that meet the published requirements. —*6. Write a sign ordinance that allows for the removal of the "S" from ADLS. The sign ordinance should cover the city's rules on signs. 7. Provide opportunities for multi-tenant commercial projects to avoid the long, difficult ADLS process. Since they do not know who the tenants will be, nor the breakdown in square footage per tenant, they are typically forced to apply for every signage opportunity available and the are later backed into an ADLS amendment process that is time-consuming, expensive and unfriendly to business. 8. Create a section on the permitting process telling business owners what they need to do step by step. Forms needed should be identified and specific information about where they're to be delivered provided. There should also be an indication of who can be contacted for questions. Specific to the first draft of the ordinance changes: �7-01" -01a General Guidelines. "All signs require Administrator approval". This implies all signs must be submitted for approval. This is not the case as currently written. 2. Why exempt political signs? They should be regulated just like all others. A business :, . . • ' ., - ._ _ . .. _ . (Legally, it looks like this is a non-starter.) . "and some may need additional review by the plan commission". This is too vague and should be eliminated. The reason the ordinance exists is to avoid the need for plan co ission review. 4 and real estate signs over 6 sq. ft". Do we really want to require a permit for these? e language is vague; you can't figure out what criteria would cause the sign to not be approved. 5. "Temporary signs may not be illuminated". - 1 .ail �� 0% , : ,/ M ac. , fil;1(4_14,1_ 11 q4c/ lig-42-14- 4n4.4"61 j °4 14 1 CI r 1 Me led" - - i AVon Ce a 4r,sit S.` - «5' w .4 ✓xrI0, ). Vl;,�,j- -1 2,111 CAC ___-_ U `01c �I -ro -■ a •c.x.nalerc a rm 1 x}r12e,1 L.Btk'U-6( lS ns �, 4)h.. C la r 1,4-.. 4 4/ 9Y�J-tL 3 II K `te e" 444/5 44^'gv / Oh ADCS " '1/ t-,5 -_ -- t - / a I14_, ._lir„4 --- : ' a `{--O 0-D W II' J O Ot U vow I.AL T 1 1 F i i 0 • i • se • • • CU - _b m CO \ & - GO CO c a) 4- s \/ � R / \ ./ R / a7 / [ CT co / co c c c U U/ 73. C CO C C ƒ ± / .\/__ / ./__/O 2 9 6 — F 6 - 6 m E 0 c 0 E 2 ) t n q 2- = 2 ) c o � E 2 / a a c ± ® & ° -- ) a / 7 / / c £ C c = o / / CO / c) E \ >m % >m 0 Ul cm / \ 3 \ / 3 \ o = o = _ E ± co r � s k \ - c c = c G - n 2 n = \ / ^ § E7 o /7 o A \ G 2 $ § 2 % 2 To ate ! (0 ! % \ = c = m u 7 2 2 CO y s a 7 a a 2 -o & o � \ \ c . . . o G _ .- r . _ .- _ .- _ c E ® la 7 n ® a ° a ° ° 2 § = 5 J o a a a � 2 Lk \ \a a / / E .-\ = c c _ : W u \ 0) o E 2 a = a a x LL 2 = 5 = m m Ca ci.� \ \ r \ \ � / \ \ \ \ \ \ c ..- Cl z n ° 0 a ° a ° 05 2 \ » 7 \ \ CO � L5k a \ k Rf Cr) \ 7 \ a 2 a 0— \ k k \ c % \ = cc ® c ^ = c c2 x c - = ca = c = oA 0 .2 / : RR .2 \ R ? / n P o o ° 7 S D 7 E a ® E ® _ a a •z = Ti ^® / o / . o 6 § o 6 ,- c ,-- m o b ¥ \ £ E o5 - 0 .- - o ' 0) o .- c - - - ®= a _ = c co - c m _ e c - co n n n 5 \ _ _ E g e = 3 2 0 3 / 0 5 2 « /® f ® / $ 0 / / 0 s = * 0 3 3 = o - - o '- c ° ' S \ ° � \ \ � To \ � \ � \ \ .0 / . . ,- . / c c � 0) k k m �� f 0 n o o k 0 ƒ/ ■ 5 D k � § : c L C 2 0 L 0 0 3 C C \ 3 ® / _ / c : 'o \ \ / �5 3 § 5 CO 5 � •- a) _ 2 m 52m 2 ® _ � � � \ / D o m \ a o CL = 1 tx CO g Eg 0 \ \ k \ G & - CD CD o § - \ ] Di 0_ = 3 M \ ¥ _ - & n = c A § m » G� \ \ = \ � / ( J \ � E � \ f / \ 7 / � � \ o $ 2 » n / = z £ R 2 § \ . ~ J J \ § •3 k % Cl_ \ ƒ \ ƒ 7,- 0 al-'D Q _ , = o / _ _ \ k D / 9 \ \ \ % \ 0 a \ E e a' _ N)\ & 2 /\ / « \ � o &_ a. -R.. ® w2\ % § o & CD3' & & n - - = n = m = 2 2 8 7 :2 7 = ; 0 7 s n R a f/ /' - tv (5 7 _ ¥ § e ƒ E G) \ / / C) \ @ = a 7 m - _. 0 -, n t 7$ a ƒ n t 6$ a 7 m- e 9 m = _'< f CD a \ j ° J \ ® � S \ / ? § E r O < $ 0 r &Q Cr)(0 Off % R \ _ § )z § 7 / ® _ ƒ h - _ £ CO E.c(5 J \a "' y e7 . / o a7 R o ) \ §. %CO = a / \/ 3 J \2 z \ = k ƒ / ® \ 5 \ \ / fk � \ § ° c § - ƒ Recommend this be deleted. If the business has a grand opening banner on the building and wants it to be seen at night by using a ground light, why is that any different than a permanently lighted sign? -03 Exempted Signs. 1. Eliminate most of these examples. They only add to confusion and argument on definitions. The list should only include very specific signs. For example the text could read "Parking signs, integral signs, and private directional signs less than 3 sq. ft." "Address number signs(see chart)" and "Public building signs." -04 Prohibited Signs section q- v. Vehicle signs. The issue is not size but those who place graphics on a vehicle and park it at a business as a sign. Current court cases have upheld vehicle graphics as long as the vehicle is actually used in the business (assumes the vehicle is drivable, etc.). The ordinance addresses this issue in the preceding sections. Recommend elimination of this section; clean up the language to indicate that you can't have a vehicle serve as your business sign. 25.07.02 Permanent Signs v1. tandardize the permitted sign styles for sections -01 thru -06 (residential related gn ). Combine these types into one category. 2. liminate section-07 Special Use Signs and combine with another section? Most SU gn requests are for churches. Why not use the same standard for churches that we allow ifor ingle tenant buildings? 3. f distance from right of way is essential, then the City,needs to be able to provide sinesses with where the right of way is. Something like "right of way as supplied by the City of Cannel's engineering department." 5. -08 (Single Tenant Building)Expand the Sign Classification section to reference specific drawings and three sign categories (panel or cabinet; individual letters; monument sign). Provide drawings with specifications to eliminate the guesswork. �iorten the number and type to one sign per public road frontage with a maximum of ee. Ground Sign specifications would fall into the chart and no longer be in each specific building type section. Delete the Copy section. These standards can be covered under the sign type chart. 6. Beginning with 09 (Single Tenant) and through to—14 (Old Meridian District) Rewrite this to basically say"here are the signs allowed." Change the references to square footage to percentages of space. The specification of size ranges can have unintended consequences. For example, if an owner has a 1200 square-foot tenant and a 6000 square foot tenant in the same building, the smaller tenant gets a 30 sq. ft. sign and the 6000 a 45 sq. ft. sign, at a 5-50 foot right of way range. Assuming a two-foot height on the sign, the 6000 sq. ft. tenant would have a sign 22.5 feet wide for 100 feet of frontage. Eliminate the sections for location, design, copy, and illumination as they will be in the sign catalog section (e.g. "If you have an illuminated sign, reference the lighting section.") Define all uses so "special use"can be eliminated. In multi-tenant buildings, one or more signs per building face per tenant should be allowed. A business can have three building faces: one facing the parking lot; 2 one facing the street and one end cap. Projecting or blade signs are permissible to the extent buildings can adequately space them; however, all signs should be described in the catalog. 7. -12 (Window signs). Shorten this section and improve the definition. A window sign "is any sign affixed to the window or window frame." Recommend that the total combined square footage of all window signage be no more than 50%of the particular window pane. Eliminate the temporary or permanent language(they are all temporary by definition). Illuminated or non-illuminated can be eliminated (with current technology the difference is hard to tell). 25.07.03 Temporary signs 1. Combine sections -01 and-02. The specs are the same. The time use for signs on lots remaining is the main difference and is oddly detailed. Can't we just say"the sign must be removed with no more than 5%of the lots remain"? 2. -03 (Real Estate Signs). Not recommending we require permits for larger lot sizes as in the new general standards. We need a sign size for business lots over 10 acres (32 sq.ft. is the common size). Make the sign height for five acres or less 6'. It also makes best use of an 8'post going 2' into the ground. 3. -05,-06,-07(additional signs). Eliminate this section by grouping into one specific to the issues. 25.07.04-03 Interim Signage Pending Permanent Sign—c. The maximum sign area should not exceed the area of the applied permanent sign. Also, if a board sign is defined as a temporary awning sign, the ordinance should specify that one is allowed per business per frontage. The closeness of the sign to the building can be specified. 25.07.06—Legal Non-Conforming Signs. Following the last rewrite, there was supposed to be a list of legal non-conforming signs submitted, notice given to owners and procedures for appeal given. What is the status of that list? If a sign has been in place for more than five years without any notice of violation, under what set of circumstances can the City require those signs to be removed or changed? Sign Catalog The creation of a sign catalog would provide an easy-to-use reference for any business attempting to investigate signage requirements. All elements should be available on line and easily accessible through the city's web site. • Each zoned area(e.g. Old Town, Arts & Design District, 31 Overlay, etc.)would have its own section which would include the following: o Map of area included. o Types of signs useable in that area (e.g. blade, hanging, monument, etc.) including photos/illustrations of each type. 3 o Size requirements with examples. o Number requirements with examples. • Application Process Manual o Step by step description of the permitting process. o Copies of all forms with instructions on how they should be completed and to whom they should be delivered. o Contact names, numbers and emails for questions. 4 Message VAAA) • Page 2 of 3 section q - v. Vehicle signs. The size of vehicles and the technology of vehicle wraps exceeds how this section is written. Specifically the 16 sq.ft. mention (must box van trucks exceed this amount). I believe the issue is not size but those people who place graphics on a vehicle and park it at a business as a sign. Current court cases have upheld vehicle graphics as long as the vehicle is actually used in the business (assumes the vehicle is drivable, etc.). The ordinance addresses this issue in the preceding sections. I propose we eliminate section v as it just adds to confusion. 25.07.02 Permanent Signs ' Can we standardize the permitted sign styles for sections -01 thru -06 (residential related signs)? Effectively ✓combining these types into 1 category. Can we eliminate section -07 Special Use Signs and combine with another section? My experience is that kieost SU sign requests are for churches. Why not use the same standard for churches that we allow for single to nt buildings? \xu�, w�1 vw't ? In all sections I think we can keep all signs at 6' max height. No need to add a 7' height over 300'. I don't think he 1' difference will make any difference and simplifies the language. t �` 4. In all sections I would recommend not stating distance from the right of way. Why are we wanting to be this picky? Are sign inspectors then going to carry the proper survey tools to police this standard? Paved areas, 64 4 landscaping, light poles, all can create challenges for determining the best place to put a sign. As long as the sign does not create a visual hazard a business owner should be able to place the sign on the property where it b st suits the need. eXCcfF v1 Irct-i 4t -j( fr t &'v J. -08 (Single Tenant Building). I would propose we expd the Sign Classification section to reference specific drawings and types of signs. 3 categories individual letters, monument sign) should work. We can provide drawings with specifications. The goal is to eliminate the guess work. I think we can also shorten the number and type to 1 sign per public road frontage with a maximum of three. Ground Sign specifications would fall into the chart and no longer be in each specific building type section. Also delete the Copy section. These standards can be covered under the sign type chart. 6. -09 (Multi Tenant Buildings). I think we can combine the Single-Story and Multi-Story sections (maybe some issues I do not know of). Use the same logic as the Single Tenant section by referencing a Sign Type chart. iminate the sections for location, design, copy, and illumination as they will be in the sign type chart section. . -12 (Window signs). I think we can shorten this section quite a bit and improve the definition. A window sign 4,40-R... 'is any sign affixed to the window or window frame". Limit to 30% of the area (as it is now). Eliminate the �- - '7temporary or permanent language (t( are all temporary by definition). Illuminated or non-illuminated can be eliminated (with current technology the difference is hard to tell) unless there are issues I am unaware of. A.k-00 '% Ss S 8. -13 (Old Town). Use the same logic as in the Single and Multi Tenant building but have a sign type chart (with pictures, etc) that are specific to Old Town. Eliminate the same sections as in the others. 9. -14 (Old Meridian District). Same logic as with Old Town. Have a Sian t .e chart with •i -s and s•- specs. The zone information is redundant to general standards sections, This should be removed. Can we e iminate the specific business references or have them match the other sections (why have ground signs only 4' tall there where they can be 6' tall else where?). Specific building uses (medical) and specific businesses (Meijer) should not be part of an overall ordinance as it only complicates choices to the reader, 25.07.03 Temporary signs 1. Combine sections -01 and -02. The specs are the same. The time use for signs on lots remaining is the main difference and is oddly detailed. Can't we just say "the sign must be removed with no more than 5% of the lots remain". 2. -03 (Real Estate Signs). Not recommending we require permits for larger lot sizes as in the new general standards. We need a sign size for business lots over 10 acres (32 sq.ft. is the common size). Can we make the sign height for 5 acre or less 6'? This would be the same as for other ground sizes. It also makes best use of an 8' post going 2' into the ground. Drop the right of way distance as discussed prior. 3. -05, -06, -07 (additional signs). Do we need this section? Can it be grouped into one section specific to the issues? I also think we need a section on the permit process (what the business owner is supposed to do). 1. Three forms are needed and are to be delivered (can we take fax or email? Why not?)to the office located at (most people don't know where to go). 2. Indicate on the form who is to be contacted for questions as well as for permit pick up and payment. (there is current confusion on who gets called (the business owner or sign contractor)when the permit is ready for pick up). 3. Permits must be kept on file by the business owner (not the sign contractor). Many business owners do not have their original permit. 8/24/2007 Message Page 3 of 3 ADLS permits, as related to signs, are another issue needing addressed. For signage purposes can ADLS requests mimic the sign ordinance? The landlord would be responsible for controlling sign requirements that are more strict than the ordinance. Why do we have 2 areas (ADLS and the sign ordinance)for signage type requirements that the City is responsible for maintaining? The City should enforce the ordinance. The landlord should enforce their own specific sign criteria. Sorry to be so long winded. I look forward to seeing version 2 of the new ordinance. I am glad to meet and discuss these topics if anyone needs more information. Thanks all, Joel Joel Hall, Vice President Sign-A-Rama Visit our two locations! 598 West Carmel Dr. Suite B Carmel,IN 46032 317-575-1805 fax 317-575-1825 www.signaramacarmel.com See our new ONLINE CATALOG here Original Message From: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K [mailto:awold @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:39 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M; edenbj @carsondesign.com; David Fineberg;jworrell @advantagemedical.com; Joel Hall; mm @carmelchamber.com Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Sign Ordinance Working Group Everyone: Thanks again for volunteering to work with the City of Carmel to update the Sign Ordinance. Attached is a draft version. As this is a work in progress, please do not hesitate to make any comments or suggestions. We will look forward to receiving your comments by next Friday (August 17th) so that we might incorporate them into our next draft. After receiving your feedback, we anticipate having the second draft out to you by August 24th for more review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator Rachel Boone, Sign Permit Reviewer Alexia Donahue-Wold, Planning Administrator 8/24/2007 Boone, Rachel M. From: Mo Merhoff [mm @carmelchamber.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 2:50 PM To: edenbj @carsondesign.com; David Fineberg; Forwarding Email, Worrell, Jeff; Joel Hall Subject: Sign ordinance Good afternoon: Here are my preliminary thoughts on the draft sign ordinance. 1. I 'm very pleased with the "Administrator approval" concept and believe it 's a major advantage to avoid Plan Commission involvement on most signs. 25 .07 .01-Ola Signage Guidelines a) "and some may need additional review. . . " This is very vague. Which some? ! d) I need to understand "vision clearance" 25. 07. 02-07 Special Use and Use Variance Signs Why separate the category? What does special use mean and why can't those be included into other specific categories? 25. 07. 02-08 Single Tenant Building d) "Six feet for signs located 5-300 feet from right of way. . . " This language is used throughout the draft. There ' s a big difference between 5 feet and 300 feet ! Six foot signs are fine for 5 feet but too small for 300 feet distances. 25 .07 .02-10 Multi-Tenant Multi-Level Building f) Design "Signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design. . . " Does this mean similar color? What if corporate logos are not the same color? Why should retail tenants have to have the same color signage? Businesses invest significant sums into their corporate identities . I have difficulty with the city deciding that someone ' s logo color or design is inappropriate. 25 . 07 . 02-13 Old Town Carmel f) Color & Design - "Signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design and identical in lighting, color, height of sign area and style of construction. " I 've got the same problem here with specifying logo color. Similar is pretty subjective. What I think is similar may not be what someone else thinks is similar. I 'm presuming that although landscaping requirements have been removed form the individual descriptions, they will be included separately in some addendum. I need some sign drawings too. I 'm sure Joel is familiar with the nomenclature, but I 'm not ! We ' re at the beginning of the process and I'm sure more drafts will be forthcoming. Please share your thoughts with the group as you develop them. I look forward to hearing your comments . Thanks ! Mo Mo Merhoff President Carmel Chamber of Commerce 317. 846 .1049 317. 844 .6843 (facsimile) www.carmelchamber.com 1 Message Page 1 of 3 Boone, Rachel M. From: Joel Hall [jhall @signaramacarmel.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:05 AM To: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Keeling,Adrienne M; edenbj @carsondesign.com; 'David Fineberg'; Forwarding Email, Worrell, Jeff; mm @carmelchamber.com Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: RE: Sign Ordinance Working Group Hi there everyone. Sorry for the delay in responding. I came into this conversation with some goals that I think the revised ordinance should pursue. I think might be helpful to have a list of goals to work from. Some of your emails have changed this list. Please feel free to add more. 1. The business owner should know that he/she is submitting a sign permit request that meets the ordinance and that the permit request will be approved. To do this we need to reduce categories and simplify terminology. If we have a functional ordinance permit requests that meet the ordinance should be a "rubber stamp" process. 2. The ordinance must eliminate subjective approval criteria. Specific text and pictures should show acceptable sign types that includes desired details. For example, if the committees want monument signs to have limestone caps on the columns then the ordinance should state that and pictures should show it. If this is not a criteria then it should not be added later in the permit approval process. 3. Allow signage to meet business needs. Retail establishments place great emphasis on signage options. The ordinance should allow these within reason. Likewise, office complexes need less signage. Signs are used for two purposes, directional (find the place) and advertising (sell the stuff). If a retail business (who wants advertising related signs)chooses a location that is not retail (ordinance allows primarily directional signs)there should be no complaints about sign restrictions. 4. ???? otA 0vv(M l aKe (-eamir lc Q IAA_ Specific to the first draft of the ordinance changes. 25-07-01-01a General Guidelines. 1. "All signs require Administrator approval". This implies all signs must be submitted for approval. This is not the case as currently written. 11tiuil (AA) Vl.J.(1 v p " -Q' by rr\-1 . W exempt political signs? They should be regulated just like all others. A business owner picks up the or.:•ance to see what signs he can have. He/she reads this in the general guidelines. Only one category is •eci ally listed as exempted. This sets a tone that politics are beyond the ordinance. 3. "and some may need additional review by the plan commission". This is too vague and should be eliminated. The reason the ordinance exists is to avoid the need for plan commission review. —4 S i'ivt `O i.( Ceti to 4. " and real estate signs over 6 sq. ft". Do we really want to require a permit for these? If so what criteria would p� cause a sign to fail the permit process (if the sign meets the other ordinance standards)? Real estate agents rely Q',`� heavily on signage. We would be adding 5 days (average time)to their time line on getting a sign in place. I have �}J a hard time understanding what an agent would say to a client "I think I can put a sign on your property. It just depends if the permit is approved " I recommend not requiring permits for these signs but instead write the ordinance to reflect desired standards. Simplify the ordinance. 6Lj VeCtC lrP p�(pail vvt 5. "Temporary signs may not be illuminated". Are we going to regulate landscape lighting next? (if planting annuals this could qualify for"temporary"...ha). If the only difference between a temporary sign and a permanent sign is time, then why would we allow lighted permanent signs? If there is an issue behind this standard let's write it into the ordinance otherwise remove it to simplify the logic. -4—‘440 Aici vis 6471,C v�otzt l Ise wP� (,t2-yYi In-04,..) • -03 Exempted Signs. 1. I propose we eliminate most of these examples. They only add to confusion and arguing on definitions. The list should only include very specific signs. For example the text could read "Parking signs, integral signs, and private directional signs less than 3 sq. ft." "Address number signs (see chart)"and "Public building signs". -04 Prohibited Signs 8/24/2007 Page 1 of 1 Boone, Rachel M. From: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:01 AM To: Boone, Rachel M. Subject: RE: Sign materials Yes that helps. Thanks. I was just wondering because this is what I found in another sign ordinance and I was just wondering how feasible it was... Appropriate Materials -kr (r i'i0t The following materials are considered to be appropriate for sign backgrounds, frames, supports, and ornamentation: (i) Brick; (ii) Natural stone, including panels, or imitation stone; (iii) Stained split-face block; (iv) Wood; (v) Exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS) or similar material in combination with brick, split-face block, or stone; (vi) Metal panels, when used in combination with brick, split-face block, or stone; and (vii) Plastic, or other synthetic materials, when used in combination with brick, split-face block, or stone. (d) Prohibited Materials The following materials are prohibited for sign backgrounds, frames, supports, and ornamentation: (i) Exposed metal poles, when not enclosed by a masonry veneer; (ii) Smooth-face concrete blocks, whether painted or unpainted; (iii) Metal panels, when used without brick, split-face block, or stone; and (iv) Plastic, or other synthetic materials, when used without brick, split face block, or stone. What do you think? From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:47 AM To: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Sign materials They're typically some kind of metal. Aluminum is the most common I believe. We rarely get ones made from wood. Sometimes they're a foam material. Or a vinyl. But I'm not sure. I'm sorry...does that help? From: Donahue-Wald, Alexia K Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:41 AM To: Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Sign materials Hey Rach, What are the general materials that you see signs made of when they come through for approval, especially for wall signs? Thanks, Lex 8/7/2007