Brandon Schaad, AICP, LEED AP, Development Services Director. Conceptual Recommendations for Revising Sign Regulations

Transcription

1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 1, 2017 TO: FROM: RE: Brandon Schaad, AICP, LEED AP, Development Services Director Jeff Katims, AICP, CNU-A, Managing Principal Conceptual Recommendations for Revising Sign Regulations Background This memorandum outlines our major policy-level recommendations for revising the sign regulations and addressing the issues discussed at the joint roundtable meeting of the City Council and Community Appearance Board ( CAB ). The roundtable dialogue focused on three major policy issues: (1) the function of the CAB as it pertains to signs; and (2) the City s stance on the use of colors; and (3) the number of tenants that can be displayed on a multi-tenant ground sign. The first issue concerns the number of applications for one-off signage that the CAB reviews. The second two issues are matters of wayfinding and the City s brand aesthetic. Although code revisions would address all nonresidential sign, the above issues are framed and discussed in this memo as they pertain to retail buildings and shopping centers ( centers ), since these seem to drive most of the issues. Recommendations 1. Properly sized signage. The code allows for large, tall monument signs, and in some cases, wall signs that may be too large or tall for their intended location. As a result, the Community Appearance Board ( CAB ) has acted to reduce the size or height of signs that are before them for approval. Judgement and discretion should not have to be routinely relied upon to ensure appropriately sized signs. Therefore, we recommend adjusting monument sign standards in the sign code to reflect the predominant (conservative) signage aesthetic found throughout the City, and employing additional standards to ensure that wall signs are proportionate to the surfaces upon which they will be placed. Additionally, we propose more flexibility in the number of signs for properties with substantial street frontage on an arterial or collector road. There can be a controlled degree of trade-off between the size and number of monument signs. Page 1 of 6

2 Preliminary standards are provided on Tables 1 and 2 of this memorandum. All proposed standards are intended to show the direction of thought, but are not intended to be final standards. 2. Design standards. Some of the design standards contained within the Sign Design Criteria, last amended in 1993, do not need to be relegated to a separate guideline document, and are more appropriately included in the sign code. Some of the standards may need to be revisited, and we are recommending an update to the Sign Design Criteria. Updating the Sign Design Criteria would eliminate standards that should instead be codified, and provide better guidance as to color compatibility and other aspects of signage design. The current Criteria document provides some guidance, but is often rigid and incomplete, leaving the determination to CAB judgement without sufficient criteria. This has resulted in a steady flow of individual sign reviews by CAB. The Criteria can be revised to provide broader direction, rather than rigid color combinations and lettering standards, by further articulating design principles and execution. In doing so, we recommend that the City form a small ad hoc workgroup comprised of representatives from planning and zoning staff, retail developers and multi-tenant property managers, CAB, and a graphic designer/sign fabricator. Given the abbreviated timeline the City has requested for updating the sign code, the revisions to the Sign Design Criteria would follow the sign code update. 3. Use of colors on building signs. We recommend adopting the approach that the use of colors within multiple-tenant retail building wall signs should be permitted if it is compatible with the particular architecture, style, and building colors, and if the signage scheme exhibits elements of coordination, high-quality materials and design. All of these components would be articulated in a master sign program ( MSP ) for the given center. The scope of sign application review would shift away from a philosophical evaluation of the use of colors, to one of compatibility and cohesiveness, with a goal of accommodating color variety if it can be executed in a compatible and cohesive manner. a. Use of additional colors within a center would require approval of a master sign program ( MSP ). Centers that already have approved sign criteria would need to modify them if needed, consistent with the criteria that would be established in the code for use of additional colors. b. We recommend updating and revising the sign design criteria to provide broader guidance consistent with this philosophy. 4. High quality, architectural signage. We recommend establishing criteria for a separate class of signs that are of architectural quality. These are sometimes referred to as designer signs or artistic signs, and represent a superior quality and design that the City would encourage. Such signs may also be creatively designed to reflect the character of the development they identify. The primary incentives for providing architectural signage are additional height, area, and number of permitted tenant names. Ideally, use of more than one color on a monument sign would be restricted only to this superior class of signs. Several examples of architectural signs are attached to this memorandum. It is not Page 2 of 6

3 intended that all of these signs are appropriate for Boca Raton, as some are too tall, list too many tenants, or have a style that would not fit in Boca Raton. The examples are intended to demonstrate a superior level of quality and materials. The City would determine whether a sign embodies the characteristics of an architectural sign on a case-by-case basis, utilizing criteria that would be established in the sign code. The City would not be obligated to approve any particular sign as an architectural sign. 5. Use of tenant colors on monument signs. Given the consistent use of uniform tenant copy color on monument signs throughout the City, we believe that the City is well-served with this approach. Architectural signs, as discussed above, would provide an exception. 6. Sign review process. Currently, any new sign within an existing building must be reviewed by CAB if it deviates from the City s fairly rigid Sign Design Criteria or the criteria approved when the building went through the site plan process. Given the large number of businesses that request use of their brand colors and logos, CAB meetings are sometimes dominated by reviews of individual sign deviation requests. Furthermore, a fair number of CAB decisions are appealed to the City Council and result in overturning the CAB decision. This is not an efficient process for businesses, the CAB, the City Commission, or for staff. We suggest that the City shift the focus from individual sign deviations to re-evaluation of the sign criteria approved for the center, or new master sign programs ( MSP ). This approach would eliminate review of one-off signs in favor of MSPs that are comprehensive enough to allow for broader use of colors, where warranted. If the City Council agrees with greater flexibility in wall sign colors, and updates the Sign Design Criteria to be more relevant and flexible as we recommend, staff could administer the Criteria and approve MSPs or revisions to MSPs. The revised sign design criteria and new code standards should provide sufficient guidance to allow staff to approve MSPs without the broad discretion that CAB exercises. To the extent that individual sign deviations would still be permitted, staff could also approve such applications. This would allow CAB to focus on new developments and renovations. 7. Commercial real estate signs. Nearly every shopping center has a temporary For Lease ground sign. These signs are fixtures of the streetscape even though they are intended to be posted temporarily and are designed and constructed accordingly. We recommend establishing a standard and uniform design and construction for these signs in recognition of their ubiquity. The requirement, which would apply to existing and future signs, would result in a more uniform streetscape, and reinforce the City s unique character. The color of the signs could be standardized or required to match the color of the center s monument sign(s). A second option would be to allow a inch increase in the height of new monument signs to incorporate the lease office contact information, thereby precluding any other real estate ground signs on that property. Page 3 of 6

4 NONRESIDENTIAL GROUND SIGNS SUBJECT AREA EXISTING REGULATIONS PROPOSED APPROACH WHO GETS A GROUND IDENTIFICATION SIGN TYPE OF GROUND SIGN ALLOWED HEIGHT All parcels may have a ground sign Monument only 7 ft. (5 ft. in CRA) if the sign is set back less than 10 ft. from street. 12 ft. if the sign is set back 10 ft. or more from the street. Require a minimum length of parcel frontage on an arterial or collector roadway (ex: at least 150 ft.) Monuments or other design that the City finds exceptional and approves as an architectural sign. Retain a base height allowance (ex: 5-7 ft.) and allow additional height for signs with substantial setbacks (ex: 20 ft. or more) and for architectural signs. Retain maximum 12-ft. height limit. NUMBER AND SIZE OF SIGNS LANDSCAPING NUMBER OF TENANTS LISTED ON THE SIGN COLORS, LOGOS AND DESIGN 72 sq. ft. maximum sign area One (1) sign per street frontage, up to 2, total. Signs must be 250 ft. apart. Name of center plus 4 tenants Sign color must match building color. CAB has limited tenant copy to a single color. Limit individual signs to about 35 sq. ft. for single-tenant properties and about 50 sq. ft. for multiple-tenant properties. Allow architectural signs up to 72 sq. ft. Base the number of permitted signs by the length of a property s street frontage and sign spacing requirements. For example, a single-tenant property with 300 ft. of frontage might be permitted 1 sign of 35 sq. ft., while a multiple-tenant property with 700 ft. of frontage might be permitted 2 signs of 50 sq. ft. each (100 sq. ft. total), or 3 signs smaller signs as long as the combined sign area does not exceed 100 sq. ft. The regulations would ensure sufficient separation of signs. Two large or tall signs would be separated by a greater distance than 2 small or shorter signs. Architectural signs could be grouped to achieve a creative and artistic design. Ensure minimum ratio of landscape to sign area. Establish legibility criteria that will allow up to 6 tenant names plus the name of the center. The color and appearance of the sign structure must match or compliment the building. Logos and freedom of lettering color is permitted only on architectural signs. Page 4 of 6

5 NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING SIGNS SUBJECT AREA EXISTING REGULATIONS PROPOSED APPROACH SIZE AND DIMENSIONS 20% of area of wall face where placed up to 120 sf. 4 ft. separation between signs Use multiple standards that no sign can exceed to ensure proportionality. For example: 1 sq. ft. per 1 ft. façade length (this ratio decreases as the façade length increases) up to a maximum 120 sf. 50% of sign band height Consistent % of wall surface where placed (TBD in a Master Sign Program) 70-80% of façade width Consistent maximum letter height (TBD in a Master Sign Program) Require separation from edges and architectural features (TBD) Notwithstanding the above, ensure that tenant spaces with very small or narrow areas for signs can achieve a minimum reasonable sign area (ex: 24 sq. ft.) NUMBER OF SIGNS One per tenant up to 2 street frontages. Same, but allow big boxes to have limited secondary copy signs COLORS AND LOGOS Permitted colors are based on background wall color. Copy to be consistent color for entire building or complex. Color must be consistent throughout a building and logos are prohibited unless otherwise provided by a Master Sign Program or approval of an architectural sign. NONRESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SIGNS EXISTING REGULATIONS 16 sq. ft. can be wedge shaped. 7 ft. in height. One per street frontage with 250 ft. separation. PROPOSED APPROACH Create uniform design specifications for all such signs. Consider incorporating into new multiple-tenant monument signs. Page 5 of 6

6 Examples of Architectural Signage Page 6 of 6