AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment–Changeable or Moveable Signs Outside of the Town Center Zoning Districts
DATE: June 19, 2006
PURPOSE
This Public Hearing has been called to consider a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance in response to a petition from business owners along East Franklin Street. The petition proposes to modify the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow changeable/moveable signs (aka sandwich boards) in other areas of Town in the same manner allowed for businesses in the downtown’s Town Center zoning districts.
Attached to this memorandum are proposed amendments to the current sign regulations that would allow sandwich board signage outside the Town Center zoning districts. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council take no action on this matter.
BACKGROUND
In May of 2005, the Town received a petition from several business owners along East Franklin Street to allow changeable or movable signs (referred to in the petition as sandwich boards) for businesses outside the Town Center zoning districts. A copy of the petition is provided as Attachment 7. The petition specifically requests that businesses along East Franklin Street be allowed:
“…to use sandwich boards in the same way that all businesses on Franklin Street Downtown and Outer Franklin Street now have permission to do. Nothing will be placed on the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the street, but rather on the business’ side of the sidewalk.” (Petition to Town Council, May 16, 2005)
CURRENT ORDINANCE
The Land Use Management Ordinance regulates all signage that is visible from the public right-of-way. Changeable/moveable signs visible from the public right-of-way in the downtown’s Town Center zoning districts have an exemption from regulation if the following conditions are met:
Some businesses in the Town Center zoning districts are not able to have ground signs or cantilevered ground signs in front of their business because the buildings downtown typically front on the street right-of-way at the property line. Projecting signs are allowed in the Town Center districts, but the display area is limited to roughly half of the display area allowed for ground signs. Sandwich board signage in the pedestrian-oriented downtown allows an additional option for placement of signage.
The petitioners’ businesses are located in the Community Commercial (CC) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning districts. Section 5.14.8 and 5.14.9 of the Land Use Management Ordinance allows wall signs up to 5.0 percent of the façade coverage and also allow one of the following:
Businesses outside the downtown area have greater options for the type of signage allowed because of the ability to have ground signs, cantilevered ground signs, and projecting signs along with wall signs.
DISCUSSION
We have identified three options for Council consideration regarding changeable/moveable signage outside the Town Center, which are discussed in detail below.
1. Enactment of Petitioners’ Request - Expand sandwich board use to other commercial areas.
Ordinance A would grant the petitioner’s request by allowing changeable/moveable signs in the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial zoning districts with the same regulations in place for the Town Center plus these additional criteria:
Comment: An argument for allowing this increased signage is that it would provide businesses an opportunity to attract potential customers.
The main concern about the request to expand the use of sandwich boards outside pedestrian-oriented areas is that there could be hundreds of new signs installed. We believe this would create visual clutter along the streetscape. Signs outside pedestrian-oriented areas would most-likely be intended to attract the attention of drivers in vehicles, unlike the sandwich boards used in the downtown to attract pedestrians. Attachment 4 illustrates what we believe could occur if the sign ordinance is amended as proposed by the petitioners. We believe that the current sign provisions regarding ground signs, projecting signs, and wall signs are more appropriate methods for attracting vehicles.
2. Planning Board Recommendation - Expand sandwich board use to pedestrian-oriented commercial areas.
Ordinance B is the Planning Board’s recommendation that the use of sandwich boards be expanded to include areas in the Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Mixed Use zoning districts with the same regulations in place for the Town Center plus these additional criteria:
Ordinance B was the Planning staff recommendation to the Planning Board.
Comment: The proposed amendment would have little effect on the Town Center zoning districts, as the speed limits downtown are all 25 mph or lower. With respect to the Town Center, the regulations proposed by the Planning Board would limit sandwich board displays to business operating hours.
An argument for allowing this increased signage is that it will provide businesses an opportunity to attract potential customers. Attachments 5 and 6 illustrate what we believe could occur at Meadowmont and Southern Village if Section 5.14.3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance is amended as recommended by the Planning Board in Ordinance B.
However, we have identified a number of concerns regarding this option:
3. Make No Changes - Keep regulations the same.
This option would make no changes to the Town’s current regulations.
Comment: We are concerned about the aesthetic implications and the traffic safety implications if the use of sandwich board type signage is expanded. We believe the proposal would adversely impact the streetscape.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposal on May 2, and June 6, 2006, and voted 9-0 to recommend approval of Ordinance B. Please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (Attachment 3).
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend that the Council make no change to the changeable/moveable sign regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe the proposal would provide visual clutter and detract from traffic safety objectives.
ATTACHMENTS
