Meeting Date: June 7, 2023
To: Members of the Heritage Preservation Commission
From: Revee Needham, Assistant City Planner
Title
Continued Discussion on Signage Regulations within the Historic District.
Body
Action Requested:
The Heritage Preservation Commission is asked to continue discussing the signage regulations within the Historic District.
Summary Report:
The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) last discussed signage regulations at the April meeting, building on previous conversations from December. Previous staff reports are linked under the attachments. The HPC is asked to review the signage regulations for clarity, equity, and best practices in mind to make the process better for applicants, staff, and the HPC.
As a reminder on the background, signage regulations are found within Article 6 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and additional guidelines are found within the Downtown Design Guidelines. There is a distinction between the Downtown Design Guidelines and the LDC Sign Code. The Design Guidelines are flexible and not strictly required, allowing for consideration of each building’s unique history and architecture. In contrast, the LDC Sign Code is legally binding, with regulations that must be upheld. The LDC uses language that should be clear, with “shall” as an enforcement. The Design Guidelines uses more vague language such as “should” and “might.” There is much less flexibility for interpretation and application within the LDC, in most cases, signs either clearly meet the regulations or they do not.
In looking at other cities, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Downtown Design Guidelines in comparison to the LDC signage regulations, the LDC requirements are much more prohibitive and proscriptive. Based on the Design Guidelines and the NPS guidelines there appear to be four important aspects of signage to regulate: size, placement/attachment method, material, and illumination. Furthermore, signs are small, temporary, and are often not impactful to the overall integrity of a building’s historic character.
At the April HPC meeting, the HPC members mainly discussed the review process for signage, such as an administrative review, subcommittee review, or full HPC review.
A revised redlined draft of the LDC is attached for review. The HPC is asked to review the redlined version and come prepared with feedback. There are a few options for the HPC to consider, such as wall sign shape requirements and the review options for signage.
The process for a text amendment follows the Type 4 review procedure, where the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation and the City Council makes the final decision. The criteria for a text amendment is:
(1) The specific policies, goals, objectives, and recommendations of the comprehensive plan and other city plans, including public facilities and the capital improvement plans.
(2) The purpose and intent of this LDC, or in the case of a map amendment, whether it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district.
(3) The adequacy of infrastructure available to serve the proposed action.
(4) The adequacy of a buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible districts.
The next time the HPC reviews the text language, the HPC will be asked to vote and make a recommendation to Planning Commissions. Therefore, it is important that HPC members share any proposed language or changes now, to be incorporated in the next draft.
Alternative Options:
HPC members can discuss other aspects of the signage regulations.
Financial Impacts:
N/A
Tentative Timeline:
- July or August HPC Final Approval
- August or September PC Recommendation
- October Council Adoption