Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo 07-29-09 .441t Carmel Chamber Singular Focus, Shared Success 29 July 2009 MEMORANDUM To: Rachel Boone cc: Mike Hollibaugh Sign Ordinance Task Force: Barbara Eden, David Fineberg, Joel Hall From: Mo Re: Sign Ordinance Comment Summary The following represents our thoughts on what we understand to be a relatively final draft of a new sign ordinance. We've worked from the comments you provided back to us, and tried to articulate range of disagreement, i.e. sections with which we disagree but can live with and those sections with which we will continue to take issue when discussions among the various entities ensue. Our comments are in blue. Our remaining strong concerns fall into four categories: the street frontage vs. façade debate; signage opportunities in multi-story, multi-tenant buildings (including window signs); the continuing semi-confusing"changeable copy" discussion and the directions for how to get a sign, which, although not part of the ordinance, are essential if we're to accomplish our goal of simplification. Thanks for all your help. Sign Ordinance Comment Summary Carmel Chamber Sign Ordinance Task Force 20 August 2008 JAt some point,can page numbers be added to the table of contents items on the rst page of the document? Done. )25.07.O1O2. Purpose and Intent. a. A. Compatible with the objective of proper design (add"as stated in this ordinance") and zoning amenities; Done. b. Previous C is missing. "to conduct business"was deleted from the opening. We see signs as essential to conduct business and would prefer the language remain. We would also prefer the initial sentence C— "Establish in such a way as to allow and promote optimum conditions for meeting the sign user's needs..." that was deleted in the most recent draft be reinstated. It goes to businesses' need for optimum signage. Done. O.K. X11(„3. 25.07.01.03—Administration and Enforcement V a. D. Say what? It pretty much says that you can't put up a sign or tell someone else to do it without a permit first. We think we should leave it the way it is currently stated. Then why can't we say what "it pretty much says" in order to assist those who'll read it? One of the initial primary goals of the rewrite was to create an easier-to-understand ordinance. Converting things to "legal- speak" doesn't make sense to us. b. F. Add the word"material" prior to"misstatement of fact." Done. c. H. "until the sign is altered" Altered how? Words changed? We need to CI' work on the definition of alteration and change. /01 Agreed. � 4. 25.07.01-04 Sign Maintenance. ` V a. C. We need definitions of what constitutes "change"? Is a change in layout a change in wording? Our opinion is those should not require a permit. We Lt iGfrW need to work on the definition of alteration and change. Vat/U-, Agreed. 4/� • �1 b. E. re: "changeable copy" On some signs the layout or wording is changed (/� pVV(,t by changing the panel, not letters or words. The definition of Changeable (11. ' �, „n", ,1 o ri & copy says"Characters, letters or illustrations that can be changed or rrh , �� !��"' � rti�fi rearranged non-electrically or non-electronically without altering the face 'I �y , f I - or surface of the sign."Changing an entire panel or face would mean a / �� new tenant is going in or someone has redesigned their sign.That would ��t i require a new permit. Changeable copy refers only to the letters that are (Oa (t- i �� i changed on already made faces for such messages. The new Ordinance �� "� online will have links to definitions so people will not be confused. `7r 10 1 - ( f" We still find this potentially very confusing for businesses. If you're just ` � talking about tracks, then O.K. But assuming this refers to signs d lAcud Ok- specifically designed to accommodate regularly-changing messages(e.g. O i i — "i 0)rw church signs; gas station sins) then let's just say that. If a new business ei,Y We `a 1 n ,( ((•t� WIi o�-�'�"J Lem Lwow) 3 5 . . tm-vitt "0 .61civ-1 t vy j vU . ( ce r7)-<- pia &ppmr d. _______-, per, Pa)a`- a tc i ( -fl eer goes into a strip center, the old name is removed from the monument sign and the new one inserted, why would that require a new permit? 5. 25.07.0 -06 Prohibited Signs. eV' C. Delete current verbiage and put "Off-premise signs."We would like to keep the verbiage as is. If we just put"off-premise signs"then we may have to add another definition to the definitions section. Also, the current verbiage addresses more than just off premise signs. It also references vacant buildings with signs still installed on the property. If there's a link to the definition, then O.K. i(. b'D. Identify where such signs are permitted; i.e. what section of the V ordinance will identify that. They are not allowed anywhere, so we deleted that portion from this section. O.K. c. E. Define"flashing, blinking and animated." We still need to do more "t work on this section. ( 1 IJ VV v Agreed. CV".C/16/1 � " d. L. a way as to function solely as a sign..." We think it should remain as is. We disagree. Most of"L" - particularly the opening paragraph - is �-{ wO4CS complicated and difficult to follow. However, the idea is simple- You (1,k, WW1), can't use a vehicle as a sign. The idea that someone is going to measure 150 feet from the public right-of-way for a delivery truck makes no sense. ,e � Why can't the intent be simply and clearly communicated? 4��� Change to"Delivery vehicles in designated loading areas. We believe V it is fine asis. /,I" ( Sq(/► / . We prefer our verbiage, but you're essentially saying the same thing. 1r' `/ ` f. L.3 &4. Combine. Change to "Vehicles parked in areas of development l that have been screened from or are not generally visible from the public ()WV—C. 1 1 �� right-of-way or where parking is not available 150 feet..." We would like to keep it is as. See comments above. We see this as overcomplicating a simple issue. .5. Simplify. Delete "painted on or permanently affixed on the doors or integral body parts" Done. `('6. 25.07.05 Legal Non-Conforming Signs. Assuming this is worth the associated 0 administrative time and costs, the process defined needs to be followed. In the past several years, companies with signs that have existed for many years without notification of being legal non-conforming signs have received surprise demands that they remove their signs. We understand completely. We are still looking into if this is worth having in the Sign Ordinance. If not, we will remove this section. If it is, we will finish compiling the list and update the dates in the Ordinance. Any news on this? 7. 25.07.02-01 Subdivision and multi-Family Housing Complex. ��- a.6. Illumination: change to permitted. What is "minimal spill off?" We will (/ change for consistency. Minimal spill off referred to not a lot of light pollution going into the sky from ground lighting. O.K. 8. 25.07.02-03 Institutional and Recreational Uses. a. E. this is the first of many items that include "existing right of way or proposed right of way pre the thoroughfare plan, whichever is greater." Given the sometimes huge difference between those two, (e.g. 116''' Street; Shelbourne Road) we recommend that the existing right-of-way be utilized-in all references. We will change to be consistent throughout the,, E--S ign Ordinance. It will follow your suggestion for existing ROW, but owner has to commit to relocating the sign should the proposed right-of- way be acquired. _O.K. "C geable" copy comment again. Refer to#4.b. reply. 5.07.02.04 Single Tenant Building B. Change "Street Frontage" to"Façade" per your definition of façade. We also have a definition for Street Frontage: the linear length of the primary façade of the building or segment thereof facing a public street on which a sign may be established. The definition for Façade allows for signs to not have to face a public street. We understand that is your desire to let businesses have signs that can face the parking lot and non-public streets for more identification,but we are not willing to support that change. This is one of our major disagreements. ; VSame comment on right of way vs. thoroughfare plan as previous. Otherwise signs may be too far away to be functional which will necessitate more bureaucratic activity on the part of the business owner to get approval. Refer to#8.a. reply. O.K. ' 25.07.02-05 Multi-Tenant Buildings (see insert A) (/j. B.1. (a) "One ground identification sign per facade and one wall or roof sign per facade. vu WO+�t by cant' the market control rather than specify "where all tenants equally share sign -f-9 be P't"- area"? We have changed this to not restrict that all tenants must be equally represented. r ut we have added that the name of the building or center is most prominent and takes up �'� P3 of the total sign area. We felt this was a decent compromise. There will also be a I ( I A' ) drawing that illustrates what "most prominent" means. We will not change to façade. It L'1/ ust still face a public street. W i I Sounds as if we're closer on this, but we still believe building sides facing parking areas and not necessarily streets, shold be allowed signage. J ,1/I I �l ' B.1. (b) Same as above. We have added projecting sign to this section for you with the G - stipulation that it's only allowed in Carmel Dr./Rangeline Rd. Overlay, Old Meridian Ir / District and Old Town Overlay zones. We also added for those zones that each tenant /I CI { may also have a Secondary Projecting sign (which will have a new definition) for vatittejkktOpedestrians walking along to see what the name of the store is (if someone couldn't tell 6V from window signs or displays). You will notice in the location section that this sign only -1-1/6"6{' has to be on a Façade, not a public street. The "OR" for a) and b)will remain because multi-tenant ground floor buildings that have two street frontages will be able to utilize 1;ta .both types of signs (meaning ground and wall/projecting/roof). Those that do not will rrt a�l most likely continue to only have wall (or projecting/roof) signs,as�they"currently do. � Poi j- Why can't others be included in this compromise? 1'/(,b'ri- 0`I v t.t"/r /9 v l6 "'� Same comment We have clarified for this section that it is a Multi-Tenant, Multi- he LA vel Non-Retail & Service Building. This is in reference to our use table. This (C- • reference, along with the definition of a Multi-Tenant, Multi-Level Mixed Use Build ng l9 ts J should help to clear confusion. 14 n i g B. (a) Per complex: One Complex identification sign per each entrance to the V -1114-A--omplex..."This would potentially allow more than one sign per street frontage. Say there are two entrances on one street, instead of having one at each entrance, we would . L41 (-M- rather there be one in-between those entrances. It accomplishes the same purpose. Plus, remember that these signs are in addition to the wall signs the tenants are allowed per street frontage. O. b ulti-Tenant Building Complex Directory: One per Facade."There is no need for omplex directory signs in front of every side of every building within the complex. The purpose of this sign is to direct people once they are in the complex. One sign per street frontage should do the trick just fine. O.K. b " "sign must have a landscaped area equal to the sign area." This has been moved because it is in the beginning of the permanent sign section. O.K. :.4. Multi-Level Mixed-Use Buildings-Large difference between multi-level mixed use buildings on US 31 and on Main Street. The Arts & Design requirements apply on Main Street, but that may not be clear to users of the document. The new definition of Multi-Tenant, Multi-Level Mixed Use should clear up any questions about if a building fl r qualifies or not: "A building with two or more floors where the ground floor is generally reserved for Retail 81 Service uses and the upper stories are generally intended for residential uses". a"...sign per Façade..." See#9.a. reply. What about corners? We have a new "note"that says: A blade sign installed on the corner will be considered facing two Street Frontages. This way we will be able to keep a consistent, clean look on the building facades. (c)change "OR" to "AND." We believe either one wall sign or one ground sign will be enough to let people know what businesses are in the upper stories. Also,if they choose the wall signs, they can have one at each entrance because it's per facade. Someone would only choose the ground sign if they did not need all the wall signs. Also there would most likely be a door on the front to let people in-they can always have window signs to take care of their needs too. We continue to disagree about the ability to have good-looking professional signage on upper stories. If we want to encourage higher density retail/commercial uses, we have to •rovide ways for those businesses to be easily found. 4.1. Directory: Six feet. Same as all other sections. Done. v2. Right of way vs. thoroughfare again. See#8.a. reply. \y3. Ground: This was changed to minimum 10 feet from minimum five. Five is our preference. We will change to five feet. eat. Another reference to changeable copy. See #4.b. reply. 25.07.02-06 Window signs Can we just call them window signs and eliminate the distinction? We'd prefer not to. If not, can we at least make maximum sign area in non-illuminated and illuminated identical?We'd prefer not to. Unless you would like non-illuminated to go down to 4 sq. ft. instead of 30% of the window area. But I don't think that would go over very well with anyone... f" /I G1/j (/l M/(t e d j t.co f-fi i'LL - I I I- We disagree on this. Again, the presumption seems to be that illuminated signs are not fi ncouraged. Why not? WJ cJJJ �t- VJ �-}- ( i i {A,.4'7`71 J 25.07.02-08 Old Town W VI CUA,c, q0.� �,�',�,t �,y � ,• ��� B.1.a Why share if tenants lease a larger space? Our opint n is that's a an ord dee io All tenants sharing the sign area will have to remain for Old Town. The small square i,--,.e footage of suspended signs would look odd if all tenants were not equally represented. ii - O.K. 1/./3.1 b Change to"per Façade." See#9.a. reply. 9ite:i.b Change to"per Facade." See#9.a. reply. I- - r j/ st ►c1 vvic f )2-cc//td -Acilw, rte. , 1,( 1 L (/r ill e'c, ud 1. -t ai2Lo vi ca r i7 0-0 ‘tC-(i .3 The old issu is e allowance of some types of signage in a particular location that are not allowed elsewhere. I think these specifications are to give Main Street a more urban feel. Paintings on the side of buildings would be out of character for residential vy,IDAtio. ppearing structures. The recent temporary signage issue for Merchant's Square is an example of the t.71;1116,-t continuing problem of haves and have nots. What gets described and cited as junk in one business area is allowed in another. There's got to be a way to level the playing field. i(l' '50M 'Change height to six feet to remain consistent throughout. Done. O.K. 1P1‘)- ' - �4. What if it's not possible to locate the suspended sign further away? Again, the issue of ght of way vs. thoroughfare. See#8.a. reply. V1 V"'6. Our opinion is that on-street signs are in keeping with the character of Old Town and 0 should be allowed. For that matter, so long as they do not impinge on pedestrian flow, we're for allowing them in all retail locations. Portable signs will he allowed on Main St. HH �(1 The,• • ill be . alcul ati•. to determine s • uch '. a t i wed. 1 C CU. c U, (c cal 0,1r) . ,1� ��. . If ' .s to ►- c -Wale I, - ' • ep it sim, e. 1 5.07.02-09 Old Meridian District '"No awning? Don't awnings signs currently exist? (e.g. Meridian Music?) Awning signs are allowed -they are considered wall signs and are located under the wall sign definition. But we will put it in the allowable sign so there is no confusion. O. . d. Wall signs 30 sq. as in Old Town instead of 16. Done. O.K. C.1.e. Developed sites typically need ground signs. Why can't they be permitted? Why is square footage reduced from 32 to 30?Why wouldn't this be according to frontage? Old Meridian needs to be re-worked. Ground signs are allowed in Mixed Use, Office and Special Use zones. They were left out of our updates- I'm not sure why though. We will look into it and make sure that everything is consistent and fair. 1.K. 25.07.02-10 Carmel Drive-Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone ((0' A. Why are ground signs not permitted so long as they are not in the right-of-way? " _ri Because we are striving to bring all buildings up to the street. Ground signs are not -�r• necessary when projecting signs and wall signs will take care of a tenant's needs. A n� perfect example is KFC. A ground sign is unnecessary when the projecting sign does the 1 1 same thing-identifies to north and south bound traffic. jl . nutiIll We disagree, believing that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic are assisted by ground r'O signage opportunities. /h) OU lie ()(1 G� ` 1q rui�.t'/� -c.... �^ 'P r•��0 25.07.03 Temporary Signs O -VO A tto t'7 j / r*' i 41� hould this be in the Administration and Enforcement section so it applies to all signs,g ns, t^n - not just temporary ones? It is also in the permanent sign beginning section. So it is V covered. O.K. D. Can we specify type of lighting allowable (e.g. covered spotlight on banner)? If you want to prohibit interior illumination, say that. We don't need to.Banners cannot be illuminated internally; otherwise they would not be a banner. If the business wants indirect lighting through parking lot lights or building lights, that is fine. I don't think we need to call that out specifically though. Or, if they want to install a temporary light to shine up at the banner, that is fine too. This is why we say illumination is permitted on interim signage pending permanent signage banners and business opening/closing banners. We may be saying the same thing,but if so, there's a"keep it simple" problem. You're saying "Temporary signs may not be illuminated unless otherwise noted (see xxx)." Let's just clarify what the "otherwise noted" is and not send people off looking for anther setion?