City Council Meeting Date: October 1, 2024
To: Members of the City Council
From: Jake Reilly, Community Development Director
Mikayla Schmidt, City Planner
Mathias Hughey, Associate City Planner
Title
Consideration of Approval of the First Reading of Ordinance 1067 Text Amendments Related to Sign Regulations in the Historic-Overlay District in Chapter 34 - Land Development Code of the Northfield City Code.
Body
Action Requested:
The Northfield City Council considers a motion to approve Ordinance 1067 (First Reading) Alternative Number 1 Amending Northfield City Code, Chapter 34 - Land Development Code.
Summary Report:
The first reading of this ordinance was originally scheduled for September 3rd. However, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) will review the Planning Commission’s (PC) recommended changes to the proposed text amendment on September 30. A supplemental memo summarizing their comments and recommendations will be provided on October 1.
The HPC currently reviews and approves signs in the Historic-Overlay District (H-O District) and on Heritage Preservation Sites via the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process. Signs in the H-O District must receive a COA before city staff can issue a Sign or a Building Permit. The HPC has engaged in internal discussions for years about the regulations in the H-O District and initiated the request to update the ordinance. The HPC intends to increase the diversity and creativity of signs and ease approvals while retaining a high level of aesthetic integrity and preserving the historic character of the H-O District.
The existing H-O sign regulations are among the most restrictive of comparable cities, and the HPC spends a significant amount of time reviewing, discussing, and approving COAs for signs. The HPC has denied COAs for signs that did not meet specific requirements of the Land Development Code. HPC Commissioners and staff have engaged in multiple discussions to craft the proposed revisions, focusing on how to best reduce restrictions while effectively protecting the valued historic character of the H-O District.
At the August 7th, 2024 meeting of the HPC, commissioners passed resolution HPC 2024-009, included as Attachment 4, approving a draft text amendment (included as Attachment 3, which amends the current code to limit the number of colors on sign lettering to 4 - and increase from 2 - and keeps the approval process a Major review (HPC review and approval authority) and requesting the Planning Commission (PC) consider the proposed changes and continue the text amendment process. Sign regulations included in the section of code relates to all districts and even though changes are focused within the historical district the PC is provided opportunity for review on all LDC amendments and holds public hearings on amendments of ordinances therein. At the August 15th, 2024 PC meeting, the PC reviewed the HPC's recommended changes, discussed additional changes, and passed a motion directing staff to draft a second version of the proposed text amendments included here as Attachment 1, which amends the current code to not limit the number of colors on sign lettering and changes the review and approval process from a Major review (HPC review and approval authority) to a Minor review (staff review and approval authority).
The HPC did not review the changes proposed by the PC before this staff report was created. A supplemental memo will be provided to cover HPC’s comments. Staff developed a third version of the proposed text amendments intended as a compromise between the versions recommended by the HPC and the PC, included here as Attachment 2, which amends the current code to not limit the number of colors on sign lettering and keeps the approval process a Major review (HPC review and approval authority).
Proposed Changes:
Signs in the H-O District are still recommended to meet the Downtown Preservation Design Guidelines, which were the basis for the original regulations, and the proposed changes to the Land Development Code are intended to increase flexibility for businesses that might require it.
Staff wrote the initial draft for the HPC’s consideration based on staff’s working knowledge of the code, the Downtown Design Guidelines, the Secretary of Interior Standards, other cities’ ordinances, feedback from business owners and discussions with HPC.
Notable proposed changes from the existing regulations include:
1. The number of different colors permitted for text is increased from two (2);
a. HPC Recommendation: The HPC recommends the limit increase to four (4) different colors and permits shades and gradients to be counted as one color. The rationale was that doubling the number of colors permitted for text was a substantial increase and sufficient to achieve the HPC’s goals.
b. PC Recommendation: The PC recommends no limit on the number of colors used for text on a sign. The rationale was that the subjectivity involved in determining the appropriateness of colors and the applicability of any definitions of colors make the regulation burdensome to interpret and enforce. There also exist legitimate reasons a business may desire more than four (4) colors for text on their sign, and the desire to maintain legibility is a natural incentive to keep the number of colors used to a minimum.
c. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no limit on the number of colors used for text on a sign. This requirement is one of the most frequently identified as overly restrictive by business owners with no exemptions for commercial purposes. It is also arbitrary given that logos, backgrounds, borders, or other sign elements are not subject to the same limitation, and where the limit does not apply outside the H-O District. This is also an equity issue. Limitations to the number of colors downplay the importance of peoples' lived experience, culture, background and marketing for a business or property owner’s specific needs.
2. Guiding language regarding color selection removed;
a. HPC Recommendation: the HPC recommends removing vague guiding language adding an explicit prohibition on the use of fluorescent colors and including a definition of fluorescent colors. The rationale was that fluorescent colors were not appropriate for the character of the H-O district.
b. PC Recommendation: The PC recommends removing the vague guiding language, and not explicitly prohibiting any colors, including fluorescent colors. The rationale was that fluorescent colors were rarely, if ever, used outside of the H-O District where such a restriction was not in place, and that regulating the color of signs was not an appropriate function of the HPC.
c. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends removing the vague guiding language, and not explicitly prohibiting any colors, including fluorescent colors. The proposed language places appropriate limitations on the use of “bright or vibrant” colors. Additionally, such a restriction does not exist outside the district, and the use of such colors is exceedingly rare, even in those districts.
3. Eliminate the requirement to coordinate sign colors and building colors;
a. This requirement is difficult to administer and enforce, especially where business owners and building owners differ, in multi-tenant buildings, and where wordmarks or other branding may not conform to the building’s color scheme.
b. HPC, PC, and staff all agree on this recommendation.
4. Remove the limit on fonts and type styles (existing: two fonts allowed; only serif fonts allowed);
a. This requirement is perceived as overly restrictive, with no exemptions for legitimate commercial purposes.
b. HPC, PC, and staff all agree on this recommendation.
5. Clarify and change requirements associated with physical relief, allow alternative shapes;
a. Current standards require a raised rectangular border, a regulation perceived as overly restrictive and artificially limiting the creative variation in signage that reflects a vibrant and dynamic downtown commercial district. The proposed regulations require “physical relief” but allow flexibility in meeting that requirement, either with a raised border, raised letters, or a uniquely shaped sign.
b. HPC, PC, and staff all agree on this recommendation.
6. Owners of properties with “Ghost Signs” on them will be required to maintain the sign (note: a ghost sign is a hand painted advertisement or sign that has been preserved on a building for a long time, often on brick).
a. Ghost signs may develop historic significance in their own right.
b. HPC, PC, and staff all agree on this recommendation.
7. Moving previously approved signs within the district (i.e. from one building to another) is considered “minor work” and may be approved by city staff.
a. This is a relatively rare occurrence, but the consensus is that when it has occurred, requiring a new COA was not a prudent use of staff or HPC time and resources.
b. HPC, PC, and staff all agree on this recommendation.
8. Change sign application reviews from “Major Work” (HPC Review & Approval) to “Minor Work” (Staff Review & Approval).
a. HPC Recommendation (Alternative 3): The HPC did not discuss this change explicitly, but considered forming a subcommittee to review signs, with recommended denials reviewed by the entire HPC. At this time, it is understood that the HPC wants to retain review and approval of signs.
b. PC Recommendation (Alternative 1): PC recommends reclassifying approval of signs as “Minor work.” The PC noted the proposed text amendment is well-crafted to serve its intended purpose and offers clarity and flexibility. By allowing staff to approve COAs for signs, the City can offer a faster turnaround time for business owners, reduce the time involved in a minor element of the preservation process, and focus on more impactful preservation projects.
c. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends reclassifying approval of signs as “Minor work.” This is included in the recommended Alternate 1. This would reduce staff time dedicated to sign approvals in the H-O District providing the opportunity to focus on other items in the HPC’s work plan. This change would allow signs to be reviewed and approved much faster because the applicant would not have to potentially wait for an HPC meeting. If the color limitation is lifted as well, and given the other proposed changes, staff has guidance to appropriately review and approve or deny signs and thereby the Historic District will be more welcoming for all.
Staff Recommendation:
City staff recommends the adoption of Alternative 1. This is the same version recommended by the Planning Commission. This version removes the sign lettering color limit and changes the process of sign approvals in the H-O District to “Minor work” = staff review and approval. This would allow staff and HPC the ability to dedicate more time to more impactful elements of the HPC work plan.
Alternative Options:
City Council may adopt one of the alternative draft ordinances or propose additional alternative wording or regulation(s). The following is a summary of the alternate options. If one of these are supported include those in an original motion with the assigned number (Alternate Number 1 or Number 2).
• Alternative 2 - This option allows for all colors but retains sign minor approval with HPC. This alternative is supported as an alternate second preference from staff.
• Alternative 3 - This option adds color options from current code but still limits the number of colors. This alternative is not supported by staff due to the color limitations.
Financial Impacts:
N/A
Tentative Timelines:
August 7, 2024: Public Hearing Notice Published in the Northfield News
August 15, 2024: Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission
September 30, 2024: HPC reviews PC recommendation and has further discussion
October 1, 2024: First Reading of Ordinance with City Council
October 15, 2024: Second Reading and Summary Publication Notice with City Council
October 23, 2024: Summary Publication Notice Published in the Northfield News
November 22, 2024: Ordinance goes into effect