AGENDA #10

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Response to Petition from Historic District Commission Signs Committee Regarding Street Signs

DATE: September 25, 2000

The Historic District Commission Signs Committee presented the attached petition to the Mayor and Town Council on July 5, 2000, proposing that historic districts be designated in a prominent way through use of boundary and street signs. The attached resolutions relate to the requests made in the Committee’s petition.

Attachment A authorizes the installation of boundary signs only.

Attachment B authorizes the installation of both boundary and street name signs.

DISCUSSION

The Committee specifically requested boundary signs for each of the Town’s three historic districts, and creation of a system of replacement street signs within these districts. They asked that these features be implemented concurrently or phased in according to a schedule satisfactory to the Town.

Town staff met with members of the Committee to discuss design options and location issues. Based on these discussions, we propose that boundary signs be installed in each of the three historic districts using current budgeted resources. We think that the best locations for such boundary signs are at major entrances to the districts. For example, one sign would be installed at the entrance to the Gimghoul Historic District, at the intersection of Country Club Road and Gimghoul Road. The Cameron-McCauley Historic District and Franklin-Rosemary Historic District would have a limited number of boundary signs to be determined through discussion with the Committee. We believe the number of boundary signs mutually agreeable to the staff and the Committee can be accommodated within the current budget and installation can be scheduled within the current fiscal year.

The cost per sign with pole is about $200, excluding cost of in-house installation. We plan to purchase these signs from a private vendor, primarily because of the non-standard shape of the signs required.

With respect to replacement of existing street name signs within the historic districts, we estimate that the total cost could reach $10,000, based on the number of signs involved. If we were to replace such signs through ordinary maintenance as signs deteriorate, then complete changeover would require several years, but could be accommodated within normal annual appropriations. However, if we were to plan each historic district within a fiscal year, then we would have to request additional funding within the year in which the changes would be made. For example, we could change all of each of the three districts in three succeeding fiscal years, with a budget impact of about $3,400 in each year. We note that most of the signs in the McCauley Historic District have been replaced over the past two years. If we were to use routine maintenance, then this district would require several years before the changes would be made routinely. The useful life of existing signs is ten years.

We note that the signs being suggested by the Committee include letters that are smaller than those typically used on street name signs. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) suggests that each letter be a minimum of four inches high. The new signs that we have been installing throughout Town include upper case letters that are six inches high and lower case letters that are four and one half inches high. The lettering on the proposed signs is about three inches high for lower case and four inches high for upper case. Therefore, the proposed street name signs would be harder to read than the existing street name signs or those recommended in the MUTCD.

We propose that overhead street name signs at signalized intersections on campus, using white on blue coloring, be retained. We previously agreed with the University to install the white on blue signs at certain intersections within the campus areas and the University provided the funds to do so.

We propose installation of boundary signs only. We believe these signs will serve the goal of identifying the historic districts. The boundary signs could be installed within current funding and would not require future budget increases for materials. In addition, we believe that the boundary signs could be installed using in-house crews within the current fiscal year.

Replacement of all street name signs would require several years to implement if such replacement were done through normal replacement. If the process were phased over just a few fiscal years, then current funding levels would have to be increased.

Also, we believe that other neighborhoods might request special street name signs if we were to establish a precedent by installing special signs within the historic districts. We note that existing street name signs are more readable because of the size of lettering, which is consistent with MUTCD recommended standards, and the color contrast of white on green. We believe that a variety of signs throughout Town would make it harder for motorists who are used to street name signs with standard size, letters, colors and placement.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Town Council adopt the attached Resolution A, which authorizes the Town Manager to install boundary signs only within the Town’s three historic districts during the current fiscal year using current funds.

Resolution B would authorize the Town Manager to install both boundary and street name signs within the Town’s three historic districts.

ATTACHMENT

1. Petition from Historic District Commission Signs Committee to Mayor and Council dated July 5, 2000, titled “Signs to mark boundaries and streets in the historic districts” (begin new page 1).

RESOLUTION A

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INSTALL BOUNDARY SIGNS WITHIN THE TOWN’S THREE HISTORIC DISTRICTS (2000-09-25/R-10a)

WHEREAS, the Historic District Commission Signs Committee (Committee) petitioned the Town Council on July 5, 2000, to have installed boundary and street name signs identifying the Town’s three historic districts; and

WHEREAS, Town staff met with members of the Committee to formulate design options and possible sign locations; and

WHEREAS, the staff believes that boundary signs would sufficiently identify the Town’s three historic districts; and

WHEREAS, the staff believes that boundary signs could be installed within the current fiscal year using existing appropriations;

This the 25^th day of September, 2000.

RESOLUTION B

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INSTALL BOUNDARY AND STREET NAME SIGNS WITHIN THE TOWN’S THREE HISTORIC DISTRICTS (2000-09-25/R-10b)

WHEREAS, Town staff met with members of the Committee to formulate design options and possible sign locations; and

WHEREAS, the staff believes that boundary signs could be installed within the current fiscal year using existing appropriations; and

WHEREAS, street name signs within the three historic districts could be replaced over the next several years as staff resources permit; and

WHEREAS, the proposed street name signs do not conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to install boundary signs at major entrances to the Town’s three historic districts in the current fiscal year using current appropriations and to proceed to replace street name signs within these districts, except those white on blue overhead signs installed in conjunction with the University of North Carolina, over the next several years as Town resources allow.

Be It Further Resolved that the staff shall work with the Historic District Commission Signs Committee to redesign street name signs so that the signs are more compatible with recommendations made in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

This the 25^th day of September, 2000.