MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.

Transcription

1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Analyst DATE: April 22, 2014 RE: Projecting Sign Amendment for Sugar House Business Districts PLNPCM Council Sponsor: Lisa Adams MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 I move the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. Motions 3 and 4 could be considered if the Council wants to take action on the item tonight. MOTION 3 (close and adopt) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the City s sign regulations for the Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM MOTION 4 (close and reject) I move that the Council close the public hearing and reject an ordinance amending the City s sign regulations for the Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX , SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TEL FAX CHARLIE LUKE DISTRICT 6 COUNCIL CHAIR LUKE GARROTT DISTRICT 4 COUNCIL VICE CHAIR JAMES ROGERS DISTRICT 1 KYLE LAMALFA DISTRICT 2 STAN PENFOLD DISTRICT 3 ERIN MENDENHALL DISTRICT 5 LISA ADAMS DISTRICT 7

2 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Analyst DATE: April 22, 2014 RE: Projecting Sign Amendment for Sugar House Business Districts PLNPCM PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: March 25, 2014 Set Date: April 1, 2014 Public Hearing: April 22, 2014 Potential Action: May 6, 2014 Council Sponsor: Council Member Lisa Adams VIEW ADMINISTRATION S PROPOSAL NEW INFORMATION During the March 25 work session the Council did not express any concerns about the proposal. The following information was provided for the March 25 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing regarding proposed changes to the City s sign regulations for the Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2). The proposed change would allow one projecting sign, also known as blade signs, per business storefront. Currently, only one projecting sign is allowed per street frontage. This petition was initiated by the Council in August The Planning Commission unanimously forwarded a favorable recommendation. According to the Administration s Transmittal, the proposed ordinance would clarify that there are now two definitions of projecting signs. (Proposal Item 4d: PC Follow up Memo) 1. PROJECTING BUILDING SIGN (currently in City ordinance) A sign attached to a building or other structure where the sign face is displayed perpendicular or at an angle to the building wall. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX , SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL FAX CHARLIE LUKE DISTRICT 6 COUNCIL CHAIR LUKE GARROTT DISTRICT 4 COUNCIL VICE CHAIR JAMES ROGERS DISTRICT 1 KYLE LAMALFA DISTRICT 2 STAN PENFOLD DISTRICT 3 ERIN MENDENHALL DISTRICT 5 LISA ADAMS DISTRICT 7

3 Used for larger multi-story and multi-tenant building. Intended to identify a building and the business within a building on one sign. 1 per street frontage 2. PROJECTING BUSINESS STOREFRONT SIGN (proposed to be added to the City ordinance) A sign attached to a building or other structure where the sign face is displayed perpendicular or at an angle to the building wall. These signs only contain the name of the business and/or associated corporate logo. Intended for individual tenants that may be contained within a larger building and are indeed to be for a business on the street level. One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2). All signs shall be located within the tenant s leasable area and not on any other tenant s leasable space. PUBLIC PROCESS Planning Division Open House September 23, 2013 Planning Commission briefing October 9, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing December 11, 2013 CC: David Everitt, Karen Hale, Art Raymond, Holly Hilton, Eric Shaw, Mary De La Mare-Schafer, Wilf Sommerkorn, Cheri Coffey, Nick Norris, Maryann Pickering, Orion Goff, Les Koch, Larry Butcher, Margaret Plane, Paul Nielson, City Council Liaisons, Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Projecting Signs Text Amendment Sugar House Business Districts, CSHBDI and CSHBD2. Page 2

4 ERIC D. SHAW OIR~CTOFt MARY DE LA MARE SCHAEI'"ER 0 PUT"Y OIAECTOR DEPARTMENT 01'" COMMUNITY &,ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCANNED To:I'Ja'ff< SCANNED BY: p~ '7 0 l L-1 DATE ~.ir~h BEhER - MAYOR OI'"I'"ICE 01'" THE DIRECTOR -= :=:-1 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: FROM: Salt Lake City Council Charlie Luke, Chair Eric Shaw, CED Director DATE: January 24, 2014 ~~ SUBJECT: Projecting Signs Zoning Text Amendment- A request to allow projecting building storefront signs in the Sugar House Business Districts. The Salt Lake City Council Office is proposing that the regulations be modified (PLNPCM ). STAFF CONTACT: COUNCIL SPONSOR: DOCUMENT TYPE: RECOMMENDATION: Maryann Pickering, AICP, Principal Planner at (801) or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com Lisa Ramsey-Adams Ordinance Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Council initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow one projecting building sign per business located at street level. The change would apply to both Sugar House Business Zoning Districts (CSHBD 1 and CSHBD2). The existing regulations limit blade or projecting signs to one per building in the Sugar House zoning districts. Existing Regulations The following is the current projecting sign standards for both Sugar House Business Districts zones found in 21A D.3: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX , SAlT lake CITY, UTAH TELEPHO N E: I'" AX: WWW. SL.CGQ V.COM/Cf! D

5 STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD Number of Maximum Types of Maximum Signs Height of Minimum Signs Area Per Permitted Freestanding Setback Permitted Sign Face Per Sign Signs Type 0.5 square May extend 6 foot per linear feet from face Projecting foot of street of building, 1 per street See note 1 building sign frontage; not but shall not frontage to exceed 40 cross a square feet property line Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. Proposed Regulations Staff developed the language below for the affected zoning districts. The changes are shown in legislative format with new text shown in underlined blue and deletions in red strikethrough. Section 21A D.3 STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD Types of Signs Permitted Projecting business storefront signprojecting building sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face Six (6) sguare feet Qer sign side, total of twelve (12) sguare feet0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1 Minimum Setback May extend four ( 4') &-feet from face of building and may overhang a Qublic rightof-way Qrovided the minimum height of ten (1 0') feet above the sidewalk is maintained-gut st:lall not cross,., nr""'"rh 1;,...,.,. Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type One (1) Qer leasable SQace. Leasable SQaces on corners may have two (2}+ per street frontage Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter.

6 The Zoning Ordinance provides a minimum height above the sidewalk for all projecting signs. Section 21A C states: C. Clearance Between Sign And Ground: A minimum clearance of ten f eet (1 0 ') shall be provided between the ground and the bottom of any pole, projecting sign or flag. Should this text amendment be approved all new projecting signs would need to meet the above standard of ten feet. PUBLIC PROCESS: A Planning Division Open House was held for the proposed project. There were no members of the public that attended that open house meeting. In addition to the open house, letters of support were received from businesses in the Sugar House area and the Sugar House Community Council. The proposed text amendment was first heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 9, Several questions were raised by the Planning Commission and some of the members of the public who attended the meeting. The item was continued to the next meeting in November, but that meeting was canceled due to the lack of a quorum. On December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and most of the ilems from lht: October meeting were clarified or answered. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. PLANNING COMMISSION 4a. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 9, b. Excerpt of approved Planning Commission minutes from the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting 4c. Proof of Publication for the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, dated September 30, d. Planning Commission Memorandum, dated December 11, e. Excerpt of approved Planning Commission minutes from the December 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting 4f. Proof of Publication for the December 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, dated November 30, ORIGINAL REQUEST/PETITION INITIATION

8 1. CHRONOLOGY

9 PROJECT CHRONOLGY PROJECTING SIGNS TEXT AMENDMENT PLNPCM August 21, 2013 September 5, 2013 September 10, 2013 September 23, 2013 September 26, 2013 October 9, 2013 November 11, 2013 December 11, 2013 December 12, 2013 Petition initiated by the City Council office. Petition assigned to Maryann Pickering. Project was routed to various departments/divisions for their input and comments. Planning Division Open House. Planning Commission public hearing notice published in the newspaper and posted on various websites. Planning Commission public hearing. The item was continued to the November 11, 2013 Planning Commission hearing. Planning Commission public hearing canceled due to lack of a quorum. The item was rescheduled for the December 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Requested ordinance from the City Attorney s Office. January 8, 2014 Planning Commission ratified minutes of the December 11, 2013 meeting January 15, 2014 Received ordinance from the City Attorney s Office.

10 2. ORDINANCE

11 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2014 (Amending Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to projecting business storefront signs in the CSHBD zoning district) An ordinance amending Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to allow and regulate projecting business storefront signs in the CSHBD zoning district pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held public hearings on October 9, 2013 and December11, 2013 on an application submitted by the Salt Lake City Council to amend Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to allow and regulate projecting business storefront signs in the CSHBD zoning districts pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM ; and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2013 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Section 21A D.3 of Salt Lake City Code. That Section 21A D.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Mixed Use and Commercial Districts: Sign Regulations for The CSHBD and CG Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: D. Sign Regulations Ffor Tthe CSHBD Aand CG Districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the CSHBD and CG districts are established to respond to the existing diversity in signage characteristics within these districts. Although

12 these districts differ in terms of use and bulk regulations, they are seen as having similar needs for signage and are, therefore, treated the same with respect to sign controls. 2. Applicability: Regulations in subsections D3 and D4 of this section, respectively, shall apply to all lots within the CSHBD and CG districts. 3. Sign Type, Size Aand Height Standards: STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRICT Types Of Signs Permitted Awning/canopy signs Canopy, drivethrough Maximum Area Per Sign Face 1 square foot per linear foot of storefront (sign area only) 40% of canopy face if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Maximum Height Of Freestanding Signs 1 See note 1 Minimum Setback 2 May extend 6 feet from face of building 2 feet from back of curb 5 Number Of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type 1 per first floor door/window See note 1 n/a 1 per canopy face Construction sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Flat sign (storefront orientation) 6 Marquee sign Monument sign 3 2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage 4 1 square foot per linear foot of store frontage 100 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per business or storefront See note 1 See subsection 21A O of this chapter 1 per storefront 20 feet None 1 per street frontage Nameplate 2 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per building entry

13 New development sign 80 square feet 12 feet None 1 per development Pole sign 3 75 square feet for a single business, 100 square feet for multiple businesses 25 feet No extension across a property line is permitted 1 per street frontage Political sign 32 square feet 8 feet None No limit Private directional sign 8 square feet 4 feet None No limit Projecting building sign Projecting business storefront sign 0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet. See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, but shall not cross a property line See note 1. May extend four (4 ) feet from face of a building and two (2 ) feet from back of curb. 5 A minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk shall be maintained. 1 per street frontage One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2). All signs shall be located within the tenant s leasable area and not on any other tenant s leasable space. Public safety sign 8 square feet 6 feet None No limit Real estate sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Wall sign or flat sign (general building orientation) Window sign 1 square foot per linear foot of building face 4 25% of total frontage window area See note 1 n/a 1 per building face See note 1 n/a No limit

14 per use Notes: 1.For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.See subsection D6a of this section. 4.A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 5.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 6.Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. publication. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of, ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHAIRPERSON CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on. Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. CITY RECORDER (SEAL) MAYOR Bill No. of Published:. HB_ATTY-#34678-v3-Ordinance_projecting_business_storefront_signs_CSHBD.DOCX

15 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2014 (Amending Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to projecting business storefront signs in the CSHBD zoning district) An ordinance amending Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to allow and regulate projecting business storefront signs in the CSHBD zoning district pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held public hearings on October 9, 2013 and December11, 2013 on an application submitted by the Salt Lake City Council to amend Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to allow and regulate projecting business storefront signs in the CSHBD zoning districts pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM ; and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2013 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Section 21A D.3 of Salt Lake City Code. That Section 21A D.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Mixed Use and Commercial Districts: Sign Regulations for The CSHBD and CG Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: D. Sign Regulations for the CSHBD and CG Districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the CSHBD and CG districts are established to respond to the existing diversity in signage characteristics within these districts. Although

16 these districts differ in terms of use and bulk regulations, they are seen as having similar needs for signage and are, therefore, treated the same with respect to sign controls. 2. Applicability: Regulations in subsections D3 and D4 of this section, respectively, shall apply to all lots within the CSHBD and CG districts. 3. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards: STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRICT Types Of Signs Permitted Awning/canopy signs Canopy, drivethrough Maximum Area Per Sign Face 1 square foot per linear foot of storefront (sign area only) 40% of canopy face if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Maximum Height Of Freestanding Signs 1 See note 1 Minimum Setback 2 May extend 6 feet from face of building 2 feet from back of curb 5 Number Of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type 1 per first floor door/window See note 1 n/a 1 per canopy face Construction sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Flat sign (storefront orientation) 6 Marquee sign Monument sign 3 2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage 4 1 square foot per linear foot of store frontage 100 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per business or storefront See note 1 See subsection 21A O of this chapter 1 per storefront 20 feet None 1 per street frontage Nameplate 2 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per building entry

17 New development sign 80 square feet 12 feet None 1 per development Pole sign 3 75 square feet for a single business, 100 square feet for multiple businesses 25 feet No extension across a property line is permitted 1 per street frontage Political sign 32 square feet 8 feet None No limit Private directional sign 8 square feet 4 feet None No limit Projecting building sign Projecting business storefront sign 0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet. See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, but shall not cross a property line See note 1. May extend four (4 ) feet from face of a building and two (2 ) feet from back of curb. 5 A minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk shall be maintained. 1 per street frontage One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2). All signs shall be located within the tenant s leasable area and not on any other tenant s leasable space. Public safety sign 8 square feet 6 feet None No limit Real estate sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Wall sign or flat sign (general building orientation) 1 square foot per linear foot of building face 4 See note 1 n/a 1 per building face

18 Window sign 25% of total frontage window area per use See note 1 n/a No limit Notes: 1.For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.See subsection D6a of this section. 4.A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 5.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 6.Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of, ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHAIRPERSON CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on. Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of Published:. HB_ATTY-#34678-v4-Ordinance_projecting_business_storefront_signs_CSHBD.DOCX APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney s Office Date: By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney

19 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLNPCM Projecting Signs Zoning Text Amendment A request by the Salt Lake City Council to change the sign regulations for the Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) to allow individual storefronts to have projecting building storefront signs. Other related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Maryann Pickering at (801) or via at maryann.pickering@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) ; TDD (801)

20 4. PLANNING COMMISSION 4a. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 9, 2013

21 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Legislative Item Projecting Signs Zoning Text Amendment PLNPCM Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) and Corridor Commercial (CC) October 9, 2013 Planning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Salt Lake City Council Staff: Maryann Pickering at (801) or Tax ID: Various Council District: Citywide Zoning Districts: Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) and Corridor Commercial (CC) Applicable Land Use Regulations: 21A Sign Regulations for Mixed Use and Commercial Districts 21A.50 Amendments Attachments: A. Applicant Narrative B. Community Comments C. Department Comments D. Proposed Ordinance Changes Request The Salt Lake City Council is requesting to allow projecting building signs in the certain zoning districts. Specific zoning designations that may be amended include: both Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) and Corridor Commercial (CC). Other related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Recommendation Based on the findings in the staff report, Planning Staff finds the proposed amendment does adequately meet the standards for general text amendments and therefore recommends the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment related to allowing projecting signs in both Sugar House Business Districts and Corridor Commercial zoning designations. Recommended Motion: Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and plans presented, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to allow projecting signs in both Sugar House Business Districts and Corridor Commercial zoning designations. Not Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the testimony, plans presented and the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council to reject the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to allow projecting signs in both Sugar House Business Districts and Corridor Commercial zoning designations. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 1 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

22 VICINITY MAP Area 1 Proposed Zoning Changes Redwood Road primarily between 1-80 and SR-201 Freeway Area 2 Proposed Zoning Changes Capitol Hill Area 300 West and Beck Street PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 2 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

23 Area 3 Proposed Zoning Changes Primarily Main and State Streets between 900 South and 2100 South Area 4 Proposed Zoning Changes Sugar House Business Districts and portions of 2100 South PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 3 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

24 Background Project Description The Salt Lake City Council has initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow one projecting building sign per business located at street level. The change would apply to both Sugar House Business Zoning Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) and all Corridor Commercial Zoning Districts (CC). The existing regulations limit blade or projecting signs to one per building in the Sugar House area and do not allow the signs in the CC zoning district. Existing Regulations The following is the current projecting sign standards for both Sugar House Business Districts zones found in 21A D.3: STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD Types of Signs Permitted Projecting building sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face 0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1 Minimum Setback May extend 6 feet from face of building, but shall not cross a property line Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type 1 per street frontage Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. Projecting building signs are currently not permitted in the Corridor Commercial (CC) zoning district. Proposal Considerations The applicant requested a change to the sign regulations only for signs in the Sugar House Business Districts. After initially reviewing the proposal, the Planning Division determined that it would be appropriate to also include the CC zoning districts as there is a large amount of CC zoning along 2100 South in the Sugar House area and other major commercial corridors within the city. The CC Zoning District exists primarily along the major streets within the City, along the following corridors: Redwood Road between I-80 on the north and SR-201 Freeway on the south (see map of Area 1). State and Main Streets between 900 South on the north and 2100 South on the southern edge (see map of Area 3) South between 700 East and 900 East (see map of Area 4). PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 4 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

25 Proposed Regulations Staff developed the language below for the affected zoning districts. The changes are shown in legislative format with new text shown in underlined blue and deletions in red strikethrough. Section 21A C.3 STANDARDS FOR THE CC Types of Signs Permitted Projecting business storefront sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1 Minimum Setback May extend four (4 ) feet from face of building and may overhang a public right-of-way provided the minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk is maintained Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2) Section 21A D.3 STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD Types of Signs Permitted Projecting business storefront signprojectin g building sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1 Minimum Setback May extend four (4 ) 6 feet from face of building and may overhang a public right-of-way provided the minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk is maintained but shall not cross a property line Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2)1 per street frontage PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 5 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

26 The Zoning Ordinance provides a minimum height above the sidewalk for all projecting sigs. Section 21A C states: C. Clearance Between Sign And Ground: A minimum clearance of ten feet (10 ) shall be provided between the ground and the bottom of any pole, projecting sign or flag. Should this text amendment be approved all projecting signs would need to meet the above standard of ten feet. Public Notice, Meetings and Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held related to the proposed project: An Open House was held on September 19, Community Councils were notified of the open house and the proposed changes as well as being sent to all those on the list serve. No one attended the Open House regarding the project. Comments have been received from the Sugar House Community Council and various business located in Sugar House. Those comments can be found in Attachment B. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal includes: Public hearing notice published in newspaper on September 25, Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on September 26, Public hearing notice ed to the Planning Division listserv on September 26, Approximately five s have been received by various business owners in the Sugar House area who are supportive of the change. There has not been any opposition expressed regarding these changes at the time that the staff report was published. City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment C. The Planning Division has not received comments from the applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition. Analysis and Findings Findings 21A Standards for general amendments A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 6 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

27 Analysis: The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element outlines policies and associated strategies to strengthen the city s urban form. This document specifically addresses signs as a contributing character in different areas, and is often a major identifying feature. In conformance with the above policies, the proposed amendment will allow for projecting signs that add character to the area and will make it easier for patrons walking to find the different businesses. The proposed standards have been designed to limit the size and height above ground of the projecting signs to be compatible with the desired development of various commercial districts of the city, preventing signs from being the dominant feature of development. The Sugar House Master Plan encourages signage to be at a pedestrian level and that all signs are of high quality materials. Additional policies and implementation measures in the Sugar House Master Plan state: Signs should be pedestrian oriented and pedestrian scale, emphasizing wall, blade, awnings or monument signs rather than pole signs. Amend the sign ordinance as needed to require pedestrian scale, quality signage in the business district and around neighborhood commercial nodes. The West Salt Lake Plan (where Area 1 is located) makes no mention of signs or urban design. The Central City Master Plan (where Area 3 is located) does not discuss or provide an polices regarding signs, but does have an emphasis on good urban design that fits the environment in which it is located. Finding: The proposed text change is consistent with adopted policy documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Analysis: The purpose of the regulations in Signs is as follows: 1. Eliminate potential hazards to motorists and pedestrians by requiring that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that promotes the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City; 2. Encourage signs which, by their good design, are integrated with and harmonious to the buildings and sites, including landscaping, which they occupy; 3 Encourage sign legibility through the elimination of excessive and confusing sign displays; PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 7 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

28 4. Preserve and improve the appearance of the city as a place in which to live and to work, and create an attraction to nonresidents to come to visit or trade; 5 Allow each individual business to clearly identify itself and the nature of its business in such a manner as to become the hallmark of the business which will create a distinctive appearance and also enhance the city's character; 6. Safeguard and enhance property values; 7. Protect public and private investment in buildings and open space; and 8. Permit on premises signs as provided by the specific zoning district sign regulations included in this chapter. The proposed amendment generally furthers the above purposes by allowing for appropriately scaled projecting signs that balance the need and desires of businesses for identification with the overall purpose of maintaining the City as an attractive place in which to live and work. Specifically, the proposed amendment regulates the size and location of projecting signs in order to be harmonious with the buildings in certain commercial districts and furthers the second purpose statement of the sign ordinance. In some areas of the City, buildings are encouraged to be built with a minimal setback, sometimes even with no setback. This is done in order to have a more walkable or pedestrian friendly commercial area. It is critical to allow the projecting signs to overhang the sidewalks or public right-of-way in these areas so that the signs can easily been seen. The signs that do overhang the public rightof-way will need to meet the minimum height requirements for clearance. Finding: The proposed text amendment furthers the purposes of the sign and certain commercial district ordinances by encouraging a sign type that can better promote the ordinance purposes through improved visual integration with the development of the built environment. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Analysis: The proposed text amendments are for the CSHBD1, CSHBD2 and CC zoning districts citywide and as such will affect properties within some overlay districts. However, the proposed projecting signs will in most cases not exceed the height of the building on which they are located and will need to conform with all applicable regulations of any overlay district they may be located within. Finding: The proposed text amendment is consistent with additional standards imposed by applicable overlay zoning districts and meets this standard. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 8 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

29 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: Current professional planning practice recognizes that opinions on sign regulations can vary and that different interest groups, including businesses and residents, may have conflicting preferences. The proposed projecting sign regulations attempt to balance the need for business visibility and preference for varied signage type, while maintaining compliance with general urban design policies and practices that aim to encourage visually pleasing commercial development. The evolving business and land use mix in the commercial areas of the City, which is generally shifting away from intensive large scale commercial uses, and moving towards smaller business in more pedestrian friendly areas. Finding: The proposed text amendment implements common practices in urban planning and design. Commission Options The Planning Commission can: Recommend denial of the proposed text amendment. Recommend the text amendment be approved as proposed. Recommend modifications to the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission is a recommending body for the matter and this text amendment will be sent to the City Council following the Planning Commission recommendation. The City Council can choose to agree with the Planning Commission recommendation, modify the recommendation, or disagree with the recommendation. Potential Motions The motion recommended by the Planning Division is located on the cover page of this staff report. The recommendation is based on the above analysis. Below is a motion that may be used in cases where the Planning Commission determines that the text amendment should not be approved. Not Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the testimony, plans presented and the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council to reject the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to allow projecting signs in both Sugar House Business Districts and Corridor Commercial zoning designations. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 9 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

30 Attachment A Applicant Narrative PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 10 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

31 August 20, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ACTION: SIGN REGULATION AMENDMENTS SPONSOR: Council Member Søren Simonsen Proposed Changes to the City s zoning regulations for the following types of signs. 1. In the Commercial Sugar House Business District CSHBD 1 & 2 zones, allow one blade or projecting building sign per commercial business at street level rather than one per street frontage. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 11 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

32 Attachment B Community Comments PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 12 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

33 September 16, 2013 TO: FROM: RE: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Judi Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council PLNPCM Sugar House Projecting Signs This proposal was brought before the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee (SHLUZ) on July 15. Mark Isaacs, who is developing the old Granite Furniture parcel, brought the request to us. He explained that people who get off the streetcar at McClelland and walk north cannot see what businesses are located on that street, even though there are over half a dozen. That is because the current sign ordinance requires the signs to be flush with the building face. Projecting signs are allowed, but only one per building, not one per business. After some discussion, the committee unanimously agreed that this was a positive change to request in Sugar House. At the September 4 th meeting of the Sugar House Community Council, and earlier that morning at the Sugar House Merchants Association, I discussed the proposal to have Projecting Signs in the Sugar House Business District 1 and 2 zones. Everyone nodded his or her head that this would be a positive addition to the business district. Everyone agreed that we should take this proposal forward. The only question we had was one person had reservations until they had seen an actual sign. Both groups are quite excited to see this change. As we are working towards making Sugar House a walkable neighborhood and business district, adding these projecting signs will help further that goal. The signs create interest, encouraging the walker to explore what is coming ahead. Projecting signs are part of the Form-based code zoning proposed for Sugar House in the FB-SE (Form-based Streetcar Edge and FB-SC Form-based Streetcar Core zones. We urge you to approve this for the Sugar House Business District as well. We would like to see it eventually extend to the Commercial Corridor and Neighborhood Commercial areas. This seems to be a proposal for which there is no objection. We assume that you will have a procedure in place for approving these signs, to make sure they meet the size specifications and other parameters. Please approve this change tonight. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 13 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

34 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Trevor Williams Pickering, Maryann Sugar House Signage Friday, September 20, :11:39 AM -signature.png Maryann, I am writing in support of signage for the 2100 Sugar House development. Given the nature of this growing area and the inability to see the retailers fronting McClelland street, it would be very beneficial to consumers and business owners to allow for "blade" signage that runs perpendicular to McClelland Street. Thank you for your contributions to our City and our Business. Cheers, Trevor Williams mobile: PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 14 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

35 From: To: Subject: Date: Pickering, Maryann Projecting Building Sign Wednesday, September 18, :16:04 PM Maryann, I am the general manager of The Annex by Epic Brewing, Sugarhouse's newest dining establishment. We love and ultimately chose Sugarhouse for our new business based on its walk-ability and community feel. We feel that it would not only benefit our business but add to the charm of Sugarhouse to be allowed to install a projecting building sign. Thank you for your time, and please contact me with any questions regarding this or other issues. Cheers, Ty Eldridge Epic Brewing Company c ty@epicbrewing.com PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 15 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

36 From: To: Subject: Date: Laurie Karlik Pickering, Maryann Please pass: Blade Signs Revisions in Sugar House Business District - PLEASE WRITE A SUPPORTING LETTER/ TO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16, :49:59 PM Maryann, Gardiner Properties who built, Urbana on Eleventh condos and that Sugar House Apartments by Urbana are in favor of the Blade Sign revisions. We are all about trying to encourage people to walk within our community/neighborhood, and these signs draw you down the street as you walk. They also make it safer for drivers who are trying to see where a particular business is located which is a very good idea in busy Sugar House. Thank you for voting in favor of this revision. Laurie P. Karlik Gardiner Properties, LLC Interior Designer/Project Manager O C From: johngardiner1234@msn.com To: lauriepkarlik@msn.com Subject: FW: Blade Signs Revisions in Sugar House Business District - PLEASE WRITE A SUPPORTING LETTER/ TO PLANNING COMMISSION Date: Mon, 16 Sep :36: John A. Gardiner President Gardiner Properties, LLC 1075 East 2100 South Salt Lake City, Utah (801) (Office) (801) (Fax) (801) (Mobile) Date: Mon, 16 Sep :19: Subject: Blade Signs Revisions in Sugar House Business District - PLEASE WRITE A SUPPORTING PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 16 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

37 LETTER/ TO PLANNING COMMISSION From: To: Blade signs are currently allowed in the Sugar House Business District zones (SHBD-1 and SHBD- 2). However, only one sign per building face is currently allowed. We are requesting a change to the ordinance that would allow one sign per business. In red is the change we are requesting. Projecting building sign 0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, but shall not cross a property line 1 per business located at street frontage level -- The areas along the streetcar - Sugar House Form-based Code Streetcar Edge (FB-SE) and Sugar House Form-based Code Streetcar Core (FB-SC), already have the blade signs as delineated above written into the proposed code, which has been approved by the Planning Commission, and forwarded to the City Council. They have not yet acted on this zoning, but we assume it will be approved.please send an of support to maryann.pickering@slcgov.com, or attend the Public Hearing which will be October 9 at 5:30 pm. in Room 326 of the Salt Lake City Building downtown. The A-frame sign revision will be on the Planning Commission later in October or November. We felt it was important to get this Blade Sign proposal approved before the streetcar is operational. The protection of vintage Sugar House signs will be coming along later, that one is harder to write. Feel free to pass this along to other people who may have an interest in this. Thanks for your support of businesses in Sugar House! Judi Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council h c PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 17 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

38 From: To: Subject: Date: Jenni Pickering, Maryann Got beauty supports the blade sign initiative Friday, September 27, :52:12 PM Hi Maryann, We want to send a letter of support regarding the request to allow one blade sign in sugarhouse per business. Thank you! Sent from my ipad PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 18 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

39 Attachment C Department / Division Comments PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 19 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

40 Work Flow History Report CSHBD 1 & 2 and CC PLNPCM Date Task/Inspection Status/Result Action By Comments 9/11/2013 Fire Code Review Complete Itchon, Edward No concerns. 9/12/2013 Transportation Review Complete Walsh, Barry The proposed sign revision to overhang the public sidewalk up to 6' and maintain the required height clearance over the walk present no impact to the public transportation corridor in coordination with the over all sign regulations for lighting etc. roadside visual noise. 9/18/2013 Engineering Review Complete Weiler, Scott It doesn't appear that Engineering will be involved in the review, approval or enforcement of the overhanging signs into the public way that are the subject of the proposed ordinance changes. Consequently, Engineering has no objection to the proposed changes. 9/23/2013 Building Review Complete Pickering, Maryann No comments received. 9/23/2013 Community Open House Complete Pickering, Maryann Open House held in September 19, No one attended to discuss the proposed zoning text changes. 9/23/2013 Police Review Complete Pickering, Maryann No comments received. 9/23/2013 Public Utility Review Complete Stoker, Justin No comments on the proposal. 9/23/2013 Sustainability Review Complete Pickering, Maryann No comments received. 9/23/2013 Zoning Review Complete Pickering, Maryann No comments received. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 20 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

41 Attachment D Proposed Ordinance Changes PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 21 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

42 Section 21A C.3 STANDARDS FOR THE CC Types of Signs Permitted Projecting business storefront sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1 Minimum Setback May extend four (4 ) feet from face of building and may overhang a public right-of-way provided the minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk is maintained Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2) Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. Section 21A D.3 STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD Types of Signs Permitted Projecting business storefront signprojecti ng building sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1 Minimum Setback May extend four (4 ) 6 feet from face of building and may overhang a public right-of-way provided the minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk is maintained but shall not cross a property line Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2)1 per street frontage Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. PLNPCM Projecting Signs Page 22 of 22 Published Date: October 3, 2013

43 4b. Excerpt of approved Planning Commission minutes from the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting

44 Excerpt of SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, October 9, 2013 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:29:07 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Emily Drown; Vice Chair Clark Ruttinger; Commissioners Lisa Adams, Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Bernardo Flores- Sahagun, Michael Gallegos, Marie Taylor, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford, Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, Everett Joyce, Senior Planner; Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary and Paul Nielson, City Land Use Attorney. FIELD TRIP NOTES: A field trip was not held prior to this meeting. 5:33:54 PM Projecting Signs Text Amendment - The Salt Lake City Council is requesting that projecting signs, or blade signs, be allowed in certain zoning districts including the Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) and Commercial Corridor (CC). The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at (801) or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com. Case number PLNPCM Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission table the petition to a future Planning Commission Meeting allowing time for Staff to make suggested changes as directed by the Planning Commission and to clarify some issues, ordinance changes which would be required by the petition. The Commission and Staff discussed the type of signs being reviewed and where examples were located in the City. They discussed what tenants would be allowed to have projecting business storefront signs and where they needed to be located within the Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 1

45 buildings. Staff explained that projecting business storefront signs would be for tenants on the ground floor with street frontage. The Commission discussed whether the proposal should be allowed in just the Sugar House Business District zones in an effort to move the petition forward and revisit issues relating to the Commercial Corridor zoning district through a separate petition that the Planning Commission could initiate at a future date The Commission and Staff discussed if staggering the signs on the face of the building was necessary, if businesses which shared a common entry could have a sign with all of the business names on it or if only those businesses with direct entry from the street could have a projecting business storefront sign. They discussed if the ten foot height minimum from the ground could be lessened, whether these signs could be distracting and look cluttered and whether the signs really promoted walkability of an area. The Commission and Staff discussed why the proposed signs did not help vehicle traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. Staff explained the projecting business storefront signs are lower and smaller than most signs. The Commission and Staff discussed how to address sign clutter, how other Cities address this type of sign, what the signs do to the overall look of the streets, the landscape requirements for the buildings and how do the signs interact with it, lit or animated signs and Property Management s opinion on the proposal where the sign encroaches in the public right of way Councilmember Søren Simonsen, who sponsored the Legislative Intent with the City Council, reviewed the purpose of the proposal, the changes and zoning affected. He stated the City Council petition was for the Sugar House Business District zones one and two but he would not object to making it City wide. Mr. Simonsen reviewed the projecting building sign styles in Sugar House and the historic nature of some of those signs. He asked the Commission for direction on how to apply the proposal to the area. The Commission and Mr. Simonsen discussed the larger signs in pedestrian orientated spaces and why they were necessary. They discussed the dimensions of a projecting building sign. Councilmember Simonsen noted that new businesses are starting up in Sugar House and the visibilities of those businesses from the Streetcar stop are very hard to see. Projecting business storefront signs will help pedestrians see what businesses are on the street. The Commission and Mr. Simonsen discussed tabling the proposal and the issues with upcoming businesses getting permits for signs. They discussed the time table for approving the proposal. Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 2

46 The Commission and Staff discussed what signs should be allowed in Sugar House and taking the time to correctly address the options making the right choice to start with. They discussed how the proposal could be put on the City Council s agenda in order to get approved in a timely manner. PUBLIC HEARING 6:11:24 PM Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Amy Berry, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Council was in favor of the petition but a blanket approach in the Sugar House Business District zone two was not the best idea due to the close proximity to residential areas. She stated current signs were hard for pedestrians to see and the proposal would promote businesses and walk ability complimenting the areas. Ms. Berry stated allowing one sign per building was not ideal as one could not identify a business if they were on the opposite side of the building where a sign was not located. The Commission and Ms. Berry discussed the size of the signs and eliminating the larger signs. Ms. Berry stated the Community Council did not discuss the elimination of the larger signs and probably would not be in favor of eliminating them. Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing. DISCUSSION 6:15:31 PM The Commission and Mr. Simonsen discussed the letter from Mr. Alan Johnson. They discussed the original intent to allow projecting business storefront signs and not prohibit the larger projecting building signs. The Commission and Mr. Simonsen discussed canopies and vintage signs. They discussed if the Commission could regulate sign movement, lighting and future sign proposals. The Commission determined the Public Hearing would remain open for a future meeting. The Commission would like Staff to address the following larger signs staggering signs sign location how to address multiple tenants in one building options for illumination clarification on the air space lease with Property Management design elements keeping with the character of the district graphics and examples of other areas with these signs how this proposal is different than what zoning allows in other areas of the City Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 3

47 address comments made in the letter from Alan Johnson MOTION 6:29:09 PM Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding petition PLNPCM , she moved to table the petition and continue the Public Hearing until such date the Planning Staff was prepare to bring the petition back with responses to the concerns and questions raised by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Staff stated they would have the proposal ready for the November 13, 2013, meeting. The Commission and Staff discussed dividing out the Commercial corridor and just looking at the Sugar House Business district zone and making sure there were no conflicts with the West Salt Lake Master Plan currently underway. They discussed why the commercial corridor was added to the petition and if Staff needed to ask the City Council for their approval in adding it to the petition. Commissioner Woodhead amended the motion to suggest that the petition be divided in to two, the Sugar House Business District and the Commercial Corridor and the Planning Commission would like to review the Sugar House proposal as quickly as possible. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the amendment. The Commission and Staff discussed who needed to initiate the petition for the Commercial Corridor. The Commission discussed if splitting the petition would benefit Redwood Road or not. 6:36:51 PM The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:37:23 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 4

48 4c. Proof of Publication for the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, dated September 30, 2013

49 '+ 77 () S. 5(,()[) W. P.O. 130.\ WI :ST V;\LLI, Y CITY. l ll ;\I-1 X-I 171i ITD.TA.\ I. D.# X (1(,,\ XO (,9 1 () Deseret News,', y.',', ~ ~ r I It' c.: 0 t.' \',...,', C' ( S ~ l /. l,', ~ C 1..' ',' PROOF OF PUBLICATION CU STOMER'S COPY CUSTOIVLER NAIVIE AND /\ DDRESS PLANN ING DIVISION, PO BOX SAL T LAKE C ITY UT ACCOLINT NLltvlBER DATE 9/ ACCOUNT NAME PLANNING DIVISION, TELEPHONE ADORDER# I INVOICE NUMBER / SCI-LEDULE Start 09/28/201 3 End 09/28/201 3 CUST. REF. NO. Plan Comm PH 10/9 CAPTION Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, the Salt Lake City Planning Commi~ SIZE 45 Lines 1.00 COLUMN TIMES RATE 3 M1SC. CHARGES AD CHARGES TOTAL COST Notleo of PubliC Hoarlng On Wednesday I October , the Sa il l ake Cily Planning (ontnlisslon will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to fhe CIty Council regurdlng the f ollowing petition: 1. ProIoctlng SIgns Toxt Amondmont - The Salt lake City Council Is requestin g tho' projeding signs, or blade signs, be allowed In certain 20nll1g districts Including Ihe Sugor House BUSiness Districts (CS HBD l and C5HBD2) and Commercial Corridor (CC). The propose d regulation changes will ahect secti ons 21 A. 46 of the zonin g ordinance. Related provisions of Title 2 1 A - Zoning, may o lso be am ended as part of Ihls pelition. (Stoff contact: Maryann Pickering at 180 I) or maryann.plckerin g.@!.~gtmcom. Case number P P The public hearing '11 11 begin at 5:30 P,IlI. In room 326 of the Ci ty Co.nty BuildIng, 45 1 I SOllth Sto te Street, Sail lake City, VT. For mo re Infolmalion or for speciol ADA accommoda tiolls, which moy in d ude a lternate forma ts, Interpreters, and other auxilia ry a ids or additional Informallon, please contact MI chael Stolt or call TOO UPAXLP AFF IDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AS NEWSPAPER AG ENCY COM PANY, LLC dba MEDIAONE OF UTA H LEGAL BOOKER, 1 CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEtvIENT OF Notice ofj'ubiic I-Icaring On Wednesday, October the Salt Lake City Planning COlllmission will hold a public hcariug to considcr IIIHldng recommendations to FOR PLANN ING DIVISrON, WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba MEDlAONE OF UTAH, AGENT FOR THE SALT LAK E TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS. DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH, AND PUBLlSHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFINATELY. PUBLlSI-I ED ON End 09/28/20 J3 SIGNATURE DATE 9/30/201 3 TH IS IS NOT A STATEMENT BIlT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" \h~ PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT

50 4d. Planning Commission Memorandum, dated December 11, 2013

51 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To: From: Planning Commission Maryann Pickering Principal Planner Phone: Date: December 11, 2013 Re: Projecting Building Storefront Signs PLNPCM The Planning Commission voted unanimously at the meeting on October 9, 2013 to continue the public hearing for the above referenced item. The reason for the continuation was so that staff could provide additional information on the proposed changes. At this meeting, the Planning Commissioners had specific issues that they wanted to have addressed. Below are the responses to those issues raised. Definitions As a reminder, the following are the two definitions of the projecting signs discussed as part of this petition. PROJECTING BUILDING SIGN: A sign attached to a building or other structure whose sign face is displayed perpendicular or at an angle to the building wall. PROJECTING BUSINESS STOREFRONT SIGN: A sign attached to a building or other structure whose sign face is displayed perpendicular or at an angle to the building wall. Said signs shall contain only the name of the business and/or associated corporate logo. The only changes being made as part of this petition are to the projecting business storefront signs. The changes are to clarify their size and location along a building at the ground or street level. Zoning Districts The petition has been modified to only make the proposed changes in the CSHBD zoning districts. The CC (Corridor Commercial) has been removed and may be considered at a point in the future. Types of Signs Proposed changes have been clarified to state that they will only affect the projecting business storefront signs, not the projecting building signs. The two are different and the latter is one that is used for larger multi-story and multi-tenant buildings. Those signs are intended to identify a building SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM PO BOX SALT LAKE CITY, UT TEL: FAX:

52 and the business within a building on one sign. The projecting business storefront signs are for the individual tenants that may be contained within a larger building and are intended to be for a business on the street level. Right-of-Way Projections Within the Zoning Ordinance, there is language that allows signs to project over the public right-ofway, but they must remain at least two feet away from the back of curb. We have added this language into the proposed ordinance changes for consistency. The measurement from the back of the curb was chosen as sidewalks can have different widths on different streets. For example, if there was a four foot wide sidewalk and a sign was allowed to project three feet, then it would only be one foot back from the street. This could be hazardous to the traffic in the travel lanes. Keeping the signs a minimum of two feet back in all areas provides consistency. Staggering Signs It was brought up at the last meeting if the signs should be staggered in order to promote visibility of the signs along a streetscape. Staff would not recommend that this be included as a requirement in the ordinance. The signs are primarily designed for those who are walking and they will be able to readily see the signs as they walk along the street. In addition, most business storefronts will be wide enough so that the signs will not appear to be one top of each other. Should there be a situation where the storefronts are narrow; the business owners will most likely stagger the location of the signs on their own. Staff does not feel that this is something that needs to be regulated in the ordinance. One Entrance for Multiple Tenants The proposed changes as part of this request are to modify the projecting business storefront signs for the Sugar House Business District. The proposed changes are not to affect the project building signs. The latter is designed for multi-tenant buildings that might only have one entrance into the building. The projecting business storefront signs are signs that are located along the tenant s leasable space and are typically located at the main pedestrian level or street level. Minimum Height Less than 10 Feet Staff would not recommend that the minimum height be less than ten feet due to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance requires this minimum already. To change it for these types of signs in these zoning districts could cause confusion in administration. It s best to leave the standards the same. Illumination These types of signs can be internally or externally illuminated per all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or applicable sections of the City Code. Sugar House Master Plan Design Guidelines These types of signs are encouraged in the design guidelines. The community has desired these types of signs for some time. Specific standards from the Design Guidelines that are compatible with these signs are noted below: Implement signage guidelines: - Signs should be pedestrian oriented and pedestrian scale, emphasizing wall, blade, awnings or monument signs rather than pole signs. - Off-premise signs are inappropriate and should not be allowed. Page 2

53 Discourage pole signs and encourage wall and blade signs, as well as monument signs consistent with a pedestrian scale. Design signs and graphics to present their message with clarity; graphics should be clear and easily understood, so that people can orient themselves within the development and locate businesses and facilities easily. Urban Design Element View Corridors The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element outlines policies and associated strategies to strengthen the city s urban form. This document specifically addressed the condition of Salt Lake City s commercial and industrial areas and recommended urban design policies to create a more pleasing environment. With regard to signs in the commercial areas of the city, the document suggests that signage throughout the commercial/industrial areas need not be overpowering. Patrons to such establishments are coming to the area to do business at a particular establishment; consequently, the signs do not have to compete with other establishment signs. Further, the document also includes a section specifically about signs that discusses the desire to prevent signs from being a dominant feature of the landscape along the city s major boulevards and gateways. This section also includes the following relevant policies: Provide ample opportunities for business to advertise products and service without having a detrimental effect on the community. Consider sign design and location as an integral part of all development, not as an afterthought. In conformance with the above policies, the proposed amendment will allow for ample sign area and height for properties and businesses in the Sugar House Business Districts, while limiting the ability to create an overpowering, distracting visual environment along street frontages. The proposal has been designed to limit the size and location of the monument signs to be compatible with the desired development of the Sugar House Business Districts of the city, preventing signs from being the dominant feature of development. Other Similar Cities Carmel, California One sign is allowed per business. There is a maximum letter size of ten inches and have a maximum area of three feet. They must be located as close as possible to the building entrance and cannot project more than 30 inches from the face of the building. A minimum of seven feet shall be maintained for vertical clearance. Park City, Utah Projecting signs are permitted in the city. Signs cannot project more than 36 inches from the face of the building and must maintain an eight foot vertical clearance. It does note that signs cannot project over the applicant s property except over the Main Street sidewalk. The maximum size allowed for any single sign is 12 feet. However, Park City is the only jurisdiction looked at that addresses the number of or spacing of signs on a building. The code does not restrict the number of signs placed on a building, only that the maximum size is adhered to. Multiple projecting signs on a building must be located a minimum of six feet apart. Page 3

54 Telluride, Colorado All projecting signs can extend a maximum of four feet from the building face and must be located at least eight feet above the sidewalk. When two faces are visible, each side can be a maximum of six square feet in size. If only one side is visible, the maximum size can be up to ten feet. Public Comment from October 9 Meeting Below are some of the concerns with the proposed changes raised by members of the public at the last meeting. 1. The maximum size allowed is 40 feet and this is too large. The current Sugar House Business District Standards allow for project building signs (the multi-tenant ones ) to be calculated on a linear distance up to a maximum of 40 feet. The proposed regulations for projecting business storefront signs, as presented last time, limit the amount to sign area to 12 feet or six feet on each side of the side. 2. Location of signs. Signs may be located on a corner to maximize visibility and there is no requirement that it be located along the tenant s leased space. Staff understands this concern that was raised and the code requires that businesses would only locate these types of signs along their leased space. 3. Number of projecting signs. Each tenant is allowed to have one sign or two if they are the corner tenant. The concern raised was that each business may seek to have a projecting sign and the concern is that there is no limit. Part of allowing these types of signs is recognizing that each tenant will have a sign. There is no way to fairly regulate who gets a sign and who does not. Staff feels that by the limited size of the signs, there will not be a large cluster of signs. 4. Location of signs. The minimum of ten feet (as noted above) is requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and we do not propose to change that as part of or for this request. A concern was also raised about the maximum height of the signs and if it was a multi-story building that these types of signs are located on, they could potentially be located very high on the building. All projecting business storefront signs are already limited to their location based on Section 21A J.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: Projecting Business Storefront Signs: A projecting business storefront sign shall be located at the main pedestrian entry level of the building. Therefore, based on this code section, all signs will be at the main pedestrian level which would typically be the ground floor level of a building. Page 4

55 5. Concerns were raised about the design and illumination of the projecting signs. These signs can be illuminated per all Zoning Ordinance and City Code standards and regulations. A concern was also raised about animated signs. Animated signs are specifically prohibited in Section 21A There are no plans to change that and now allow animated signs. 6. Allowing these types of signs will cause the city to lose control of the streets and open spaces. Any sign that projects or encroaches into the public right-or-way would need to obtain approval from Property Management and provide proof of liability. The costs associated with those permits are not something that the Planning Division can regulate through zoning. These proposed changes will not modify the current requirements. Walkability Studies There do not appear to the any published studies that show these types of signs encourage walkability or make areas more walkable. However, several jurisdictions from all around the country note in their projecting signs ordinances or standards, that the signs are designed for the pedestrians and at a pedestrian scale. Analysis and Findings Findings Please refer to the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission staff report for a discussion of the analysis and findings. A link to that report is provided below: Commission Options The Planning Commission can: Recommend denial of the proposed text amendment. Recommend the text amendment be approved as proposed. Recommend modifications to the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission is a recommending body for the matter and this text amendment will be sent to the City Council following the Planning Commission recommendation. The City Council can choose to agree with the Planning Commission recommendation, modify the recommendation, or disagree with the recommendation. Recommendation Based on the findings in the staff report, Planning Staff finds the proposed amendment does adequately meet the standards for general text amendments and therefore recommends the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment related to allowing projecting signs in both Sugar House Business District zoning designations. Recommended Motion: Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and plans presented, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to allow projecting signs in both Sugar House Business District zoning designations. Page 5

56 Below is a motion that may be used in cases where the Planning Commission determines that the text amendment should not be approved. Not Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the testimony, plans presented and the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council to reject the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to allow projecting signs in both Sugar House Business District zoning designations. Attachments: 1. Updated Zoning Map 2. Proposed Ordinance Changes 3. Photographs Page 6

57 Attachment 1 Updated Zoning Map Page 7

58 Attachment 2 Proposed Ordinance Changes Section 21A D.3 STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD Types of Signs Permitted Projecting business storefront sign Maximum Area Per Sign Face Six (6) square feet per sign side, total of twelve (12) square feet. Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs See note 1. Minimum Setback May extend four (4 ) feet from face of a building and two (2 ) feet from back of curb. 5 The minimum of minimum height of ten (10 ) feet above the sidewalk shall be maintained. Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type One (1) per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have two (2). All signs shall be located within the tenant s leasable area and not on any other tenant s leasable space. Notes: 1 5 For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A J of this chapter. Public property lease and insurance required for projection of property line. Page 8

59 Attachment 3 Photographs Historic building in Denver with a projecting sign for the restaurant on the ground floor. Another restaurant in Denver with a symbol for a projecting sign. Page 9

60 A row of businesses and restaurants in downtown Denver with signs for each business. These signs are not staggered and pedestrians can easily find their way to the business they are looking for. Page 10

61 4e. Excerpt of approved Planning Commission minutes from the December 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting

62 Excerpt of SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, December 11, 2013 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:11 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chair Clark Ruttinger; Commissioners Lisa Adams Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Michael Gallegos, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Chairperson Emily Drown and Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford, Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Everett Joyce, Senior Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Nick Britton, Senior Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary and Paul Nielson, City Land Use Attorney. 8:39:02 PM Projecting Signs Text Amendment - The Salt Lake City Council is requesting a change to the sign regulations in the Sugar House Business Districts (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) to allow individual storefronts to have projecting signs. Other related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at ( 801) or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com. Case number PLNPCM ). Ms. Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed sign amendments. The Commission and Staff discussed the location of the signs on the face of the structures in relation to entrances of the buildings. PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing, Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 11, 2013 Page 1

63 Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Community Council and Merchants Association approved the proposal. She stated there are shared entrances but with directional signs people can be directed to business entrances. Mr. George Chapman stated there are quite a few places that would benefit from signs directing people to parking areas which should be allowed in this ordinance. He stated the lighting and maintenance should be regulated and more awnings should be allowed in the area. Mr. Chapman stated he was in support of the overall ordinance. Vice Chairperson Ruttinger closed the Public Hearing. Staff stated private directional signs for parking and awnings are allowed in the area. The Commission and Staff discussed sign maintenance. Staff stated maintenance was a general factor and was covered under the building code. The Commission and Staff discussed the regulation for sign lighting. Staff explained there had not been a solution however a petition has been submitted to the City Council regulating sign lighting. MOTION 8:50:03 PM Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding petition PLNPCM the Projecting Building Store Front Sign Ordinance, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, the evidence provided, and the testimony heard, she moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to allow projecting signs in both Sugar House Business District zoning designations. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:14:49 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 11, 2013 Page 2

64 4f. Proof of Publication for the December 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, dated November 30, 2013

65 Remit to: P.O. Box West Valley City, UT Order Confirmation for Ad # Client PLANNING DIVISION Client Phone Payor Customer PLANNING DIVISION Payor Phone Ad Content Proof Actual Size Account# Address PO BOX SALT LAKE CITY UT USA Payor Account Payor Address PO BOX SALT LAKE CITY UT Fax Ordered By Michelle Acct. Exec kstowe Total Amount $ Payment Amt $0.00 Amount Due $ Payment Method Confirmation Notes: Text: Michelle Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits PO Number Plan Comm PH 12/11 Ad Type Legal Liner Ad Size 2.0 X 65 Li Color <NONE> Product Placement Salt Lake Tribune:: Legal Liner Notice Scheduled Date(s): 11/30/2013 Product utahlegals.com:: Scheduled Date(s): Placement utahlegals.com 11/30/2013 Position Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Position utahlegals.com 11/25/201312:08:40PM 1

66 5. ORIGINAL REQUEST/PETITION INITIATION

67 PL AI('GrYI:tO 13 -CD73Cj Zoning Amendment ~Am e nd t he text of the Zoning Ordinance 0 Am end t he Zoning Map OFFICE l!ise ONLY R"eived By: [ Date Received: [ Pmject n: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:.p u.=~< - ~ ~ F! L EASEPROVIDE~R~_ Address of Subject Property (or Area): A:J.J+ Name of Appli nt: DOwner 0 Contractor 0 Architect )2t15ther: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Phone: -+ Please note that a ditional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION -+ If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt lake City Planning Counter at (801) prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED\FEE -+ Filing fee of $ plus $ per acre in excess of one acre, plus additional cost of postage for mailing notice. SIGNATURE -+ If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: I Dat~._.11-'":2 _ ()