Loading...
Item 6F (2)M E M O R A N D U M September 15, 2010 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ken Baker, AICP – Director of Planning & Development Services Subject: Ordinance No. 704-E, Amendment to Sign Ordinance No. 704-D pertaining to readerboard signs. Action Requested: 1) Conduct a public hearing nd 2) Consider approval of 2 reading for Ordinance No. 704-E, City of Southlake Sign Ordinance Background Information: On July 6, 2010, City Council passed a 90-day moratorium on readerboard signs due to concerns regarding the placement and use of these signs. Following passage of the moratorium, staff was asked to review the regulations for readerboard signs as well as the use of logos on attached signs and propose amendments as needed. A readerboard sign is defined as a sign that utilizes alternating electronic data control components or a sign comprised of non-permanent letters, numerals or symbols, which allow a change in copy by adding, removing or rearranging said letters, symbols or numerals. The regulations for readerboard signs in the current Sign Ordinance, Ordinance No. 704-D, may not adequately address the detrimental impacts of these signs. As such, amendments to the ordinance are proposed and are included in entirety in Ordinance No. 704-E. No changes to logo regulations are currently proposed to allow further discussion on this topic. Below is a summary of the proposed changes: 1. Add a definition for Bulletin Board Sign as follows: SIGN, BULLETIN BOARD: A permanent ground sign or monument sign within a residential subdivision for displaying news and information for subdivision residents. 2. Remove the definition for “Institutional Sign”. 3. Combine the definitions for “Electronic Readerboard Sign” and “Manual Readerboard Sign” into one definition: SIGN, READERBOARD: A sign that utilizes alternating electronic data control components or a sign comprised of non-permanent letters, numerals or symbols, which allows a change of sign copy by adding, removing or rearranging said letters, symbols or numerals. 4. Add the following to the list of Prohibited Signs in Section 5.2: 5.2.12 Readerboard signs, with the exception of bulletin board signs, drive through signs, and gasoline pricing signs which comply with the regulations set forth in Section 7.2. 5. Remove “Institutional Sign” as an allowed sign type from Table 7. 6. Remove the duplicate listing for “Bulletin Board Sign” from Table 7. Financial Considerations: None Strategic Link: Quality Development Citizen Input/ Board Review: A SPIN meeting was held for citizen input on August 23, 2010. The report from this meeting is attached. A public hearing is scheduled for the second reading at City Council on September 21, 2010. Council Action: September 7, 2010; Approved first reading as presented. Legal Review: The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance. Alternatives: City Council may approve, deny, or modify this proposed ordinance amendment as deemed necessary. Supporting Documents: SPIN Meeting Report dated August 23, 2010 Ordinance No. 704-E, City of Southlake Sign Ordinance SPIN MEETING REPORT PROJECT NAME: Sign Ordinance Amendment Options – Readerboards and Logo Regulations SPIN DISTRICTS: Citywide MEETING DATE: August 23, 2010 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 MAIN STREET, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS MEETING ROOMS 3C & 3D TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Fifteen (15)  SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Ray Tremain (#9), Ron Evans (#10), Vic Awtry (#7), Mike Terry (#6)  STAFF PRESENTING & PRESENT: Ken Baker, Director of Planning & Development Services, Jenny Crosby, Planner II, Clayton Comstock, Planner II, and Daniel Cortez, Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Cortez, (817)748-8070; dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current regulations may not adequately address the detrimental impacts of readerboard signs located throughout the City. A moratorium was approved by City Council on July 6, 2010 to allow time to research the use and regulation of readerboard signs and to propose revisions and possible options to the Sign Ordinance. This moratorium expires October 4, 2010. Amendment Options Option 1: • Prohibit all types of readerboard signs, including menuboards, bulletin boards, institutional signs, and gasoline pricing signs. • Allow readerboards only by variance. Option 2: • Prohibit readerboards along major roadways (S.H. 114, F.M. 1709, F.M. 1938, arterials and collectors). – Allow readerboards along neighborhood streets (bulletin boards) and internal drives (menuboard signs). Option 3: • Allow certain readerboards: – Gasoline pricing, but readerboard section limited to only displaying price per gallon of gasoline. – Menuboards. – Bulletin boards. Option 4: • Allow readerboards as currently permitted, but regulate brightness and intensity. QUESTIONS / CONCERNS Does any of this ever include content, do we intend to?  We do currently have regulations in place for explicit language and content. We check with our attorneys regarding content and it is difficult to prohibit unless it’s explicit. One thing we can do is eliminate logos, I’m thinking of the taco stand where the female is underneath the umbrella. Existing signs would be grandfathered?  Yes, but if they replace it they will need to conform to today’s regulations or any changes done if the ordinance is modified. If the approach is taken where variances are used there would be a 300 dollar charge for each sign. What’s the cost to them if they get caught for violating the ordinance?  We can write them a citation and fine them. If you’re not careful, signs can destroy the appearance of the city. So lit up digital letter sign in neighborhoods are readerboards?  Yes, there are two different types of readerboards, electronic and manual. It seems when you’re going northbound on Carroll towards 114, there are a lot of signs on that portion that makes it look unattractive.  When the urban design plan and sign plan were developed those things were looked at particularly along Carroll because it was identified as a primary entrance into the city. Expect to see some signage enhancements soon. You mentioned something about signs glaring, maybe adding some non-glare glass to reduce the brightness would help; was that considered?  No, but we can definitely put that as an option for amending the current ordinance. What if no pictures can go into a sign and only letters?  We can write that into the regulations if that’s what Council wishes to add. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.