ZOCO CHAIRMAN S PROPOSED DISCUSSION ISSUES PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON SIGNS (SECTION 34)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ZOCO CHAIRMAN S PROPOSED DISCUSSION ISSUES PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON SIGNS (SECTION 34)"

Simon Parks
5 years ago
Views:

1 ZOCO CHAIRMAN S PROPOSED DISCUSSION ISSUES PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON SIGNS (SECTION 34) 1. MODIFICATIONS [ 34.3] Staff proposal Under 34.3.A, staff proposes that the County Board be able to approve the following special exceptions to the requirements and standards that would otherwise be established under the sign ordinance amendment as part of a request by an applicant under a comprehensive sign plan if it finds that the exceptions are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not adversely impact the neighborhood in which the sign is located: 1. Sign area may be reallocated among sign types so that one sign per building could exceed the proposed size constraint for that type of sign so long as other signs in the comprehensive sign plan are reduced by an equal amount and does not adversely affect adjacent residential properties. 2. Exceptions to placement requirements could be made where topography or lot configuration significantly limit placement or effectiveness of signs when a building or its main or tenant entrances are not visible to pedestrians; the surrounding street network limits visibility of signs, or a building has frontage on a plaza or pedestrian pathway where signs would not otherwise be allowed. 3. Where expressed authority exists in 34.7.O.3, the Board could approve requests for exceptions to hours of illumination. In addition, staff proposes that the County Board would not, under any circumstances, be able to approve: 1. A sign type or characteristic explicitly prohibited under Illumination exceeding standards established under Hours of illumination unless expressly permitted under 34.7.O.3 4. A sign type not expressly permitted under , 34.8 and Greater aggregate sign area than allowed under F Under current practice and policy, the County Board may modify most standards and requirements of the current 34 if part of a comprehensive sign plan. The proposal eliminates most County Board discretion. Proponents of greater Board discretion argue

2 that it fosters creativity, a lively environment, and allows for consideration of technologies not now possible. Opponents of Board discretion argue that it lends itself to arbitrariness and unequal application of the ordinance and increases the risk that the County could be subject to litigation. The proposed amendment would eliminate any County Board discretion related to signs at the roofline. Currently, this is an area of significant County Board consideration. Proponents argue that such County Board consideration provides the best way for determining whether a particular proposed roofline sign should be allowed. Opponents argue that County Board decisions eliminate predictability and conformity to established requirements and could lead to more roofline signage. To address concerns that the proposal discourages creativity and innovation, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the County Board be able to approve special exceptions when an innovative aspect of a sign would not be allowed under current rules but the exception would not affect standards related to number, size, aggregate area, height, changeable copy, lighting, distance from residential zones, and directional restrictions. In addition, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the County Board should concurrently approve an amendment to 34 that would allow other entities to display signs similar to the one approved under special exception. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the County Board continue to review and approve roofline signs as part of reviews of comprehensive sign plans or site plan application reviews. The Planning Commission may also wish to recommend that the County Board could, under special exceptions authority, consider and approve one Jumbotron per Metro station area only if it finds such a sign would not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. [See discussion on Jumbotrons below.] 2

3 2. GROUPING PUBLIC DISTRICTS WITH COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MIXED-USED DISTRICTS [Section 34.7] OR ALLOWING PUBLIC USES IN THESE ZONING DISTRICTS TO BE REGULATED UNDER SECTION 34.8 Staff proposes to group public zoning districts S3A, PS, and S-D with commercial, industrial and mixed-use zoning districts. It is also proposed that institutional uses e.g., schools, churches, community center, hospital, institutional home, or other public or semipublic use have the option of having signage related to this use regulated under 34.8, which provides some additional flexibility but also excludes some signage choices otherwise available in the uses zoning districts. By their nature, uses in public use zoning districts primarily schools, parks, and fire stations have very different signage requirements than uses in commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts. In addition, most public use zoning districts are adjacent to or surrounded by residential zoning districts and signage for these districts may not be appropriate directly adjacent to R or RA zoning districts. Finally, schools and parks in particular seem to have signage needs that are more expansive and/or simply different from signage needs of most other public or semi-public uses. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that separate standards for public use zoning districts appropriate to their uses be delineated in their own subsection of 34. The Planning Commission may also wish to recommend that these standards be set so as to be especially sensitive to the adjacent or surrounding residential zoning districts. 3

4 3. HOURS OF ILLUMINATION AND SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF SIGNS ABOVE 40 FEET [SECTION 34.7.O] A. Placement and Size of Signs at the roofline of buildings taller than 70 feet. Staff proposes that buildings in commercial, industrial and mixed-use zoning districts devoted primarily to office, commercial or hotel uses above the ground floor and that are taller than 70 feet be allotted additional sign area that is a function of the width and height of a building (see p. 25 or the draft ordinance amendment for details). In addition, staff proposes that this additional horizontally oriented signage be placed only within a sign band located within 20 feet of the main roofline of the building, or where there are multiple rooflines, within 20 feet of another roofline. Finally, signs would be required to fit into a band that is not taller than nine feet for 20 percent of its width and six feet for the other 80 percent of its width. Issue The methodology for allotting additional sign area could result in very large signs. In addition, because building width is considered in determining additional sign area, signs at the tope of buildings with small footprints would be required to be somewhat or significantly smaller than signs on similarly tall but narrower buildings. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend a formula that results in smaller signs. Alternatively, the Planning Commission might wish to recommend that not additional sign area be allotted to buildings taller than 70 feet. B. Signs facing R and RA zoning districts Staff has proposed one general rule and two options: General Rule: No signs placed above 40 feet may be lighted between 12:00 a.m., midnight, and 8:00 a.m. Option A: Permits lighted signs above 40 feet to be placed only on building facades perpendicular or facing away from R and RA zoning districts as defined by Line A on Map 34-1 or on facades facing Line A when the building s façade is substantially blocked from view from R and RA zoning districts by another building or structure of equal or greater height. 4

5 Option B: Prohibits lighting of signs above 40 feet and within 200 feet of an R or RA zoning district between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Prohibits lighting of signs above 40 feet and within 200 feet of a multifamily building in any zoning district between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. In the first case, the County Board may adjust hours. Option A: Does not restrict hours an allowable sign may be lighted beyond those established in the general rule, 12:00 a.m., midnight, and 8:00 a.m. These hours may be too limited. In addition, homes and apartments in residential districts may me adversely affected by signs on perpendicular facades. Option B: Not clear that the 200-foot restriction is sufficient. Requiring lighted signs facing R and RA zoning districts to be turned off at 7:00 p.m. may be too restrictive. The Commission may wish to express a preference for either staff-proposed option. In addition, the Commission may wish to recommend if it supports Option B that the prohibition on hours for lighting signs above 40 feet and within 200 feet of R or RA zoning districts or multifamily buildings in any zoning district begin later in the evening, say at 10:00 p.m., rather than 7:00 p.m. Regardless of the option it elects to support, the Commission may also wish to recommend, that lighting of signs below 40 feet that face R or RA zoning districts or multifamily buildings in any zoning district and within some distance (say, 200 feet or some greater distance) of those zoning districts be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 5

6 C. Signs Facing the Monumental Core, the GW Parkway, Arlington Cemetery and the Iwo Jima Memorial Staff has proposed four options: Option C: Signs above 40 feet facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery may not be lighted between 12:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Option D: Signs above 40 feet facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery may not be lighted between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Option E: Signs above 40 feet facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery may not be lighted. Option F: Signs above 40 feet may not face the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery. Staff has not proposed any restrictions on lighting of signs below 40 feet. Staff has also provided a map defining the boundary of the area for signs facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery. Some have argued that signs enliven virtually any environment. Others have argued that being able to place a tenant s name on a tall building makes it easier to lease space in that building and that any increase in occupancy benefits all of Arlington. Still others have argued that the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery are among if not our nation s most hallowed places and protecting the vistas from these places is important. They have noted that if it turns out that lighted signage is allowed and turns out to be a problem, it would be a mistake that would be hard, if not impossible to undo. The Commission could elect to recommend any one of the staff-proposed options. In addition, Commissioners may wish to make recommendations involving the specific boundaries on Map 34-1 related to the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery. Finally, the Commission may wish to make a recommendation related to lighting of signs below 40 feet facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway, or Arlington National Cemetery. 6

7 D. Adjacencies [Sections 34.7.N.4 and ] Staff proposes that no signs be allowed to be placed on any part of a side or rear wall of a building in a commercial, industrial, mixed-use, or public zoning district within 100 feet of an R or RA zoning district except in the case of a tenant whose primary entrance is located on the side or rear wall of a building. Staff also proposes in Option B relating to hours of illumination that 200 feet from and R or RA zoning district be the distance for ceasing illumination at designated times. Some have suggested that these distances are in fact quite close to residential areas and that the distance standard for illumination could be increased. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend distance standards that are greater than those proposed by staff. 7

8 4. PERSONAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY [Section 34.9] PERMISSIBLE LOCATIONS FOR POSTING PERSONAL SIGNS [SECTION 34.9.C.2 Staff proposes that seven-day signs those designed to meet personal needs in residential zoning districts that inform neighbors and those passing through neighborhoods of personal needs or events, such as lost dog or cat or yard sale signs, would be limited to being posted for seven consecutive days and to being planted in the ground in medians and other areas in the public right of way. Staff proposes that temporary signs be allowed to be affixed to the ground and posted only on that portion of the public right of way adjacent to a street, road, highway or sidewalk. Staff proposes that these signs not be allowed to be posted on utility poles. Signs designed to meet personal needs are commonly posted in locations in neighborhoods along sidewalks at eye level. It is unlikely that these kinds of signs will no longer be posted even if seven-day signs were allowed. Moreover, some believe that signs like these reflect the human aspects of neighborhoods that many people value and contribute to making them more livable. Personal signs are commonly posted on utility poles. They are also posted occasionally on trees and public fences. It is unlikely that the proposed amendment, which allows only freestanding signs in the public right of way, will end this practice. Failing to accommodate common practices not be sensible. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the draft ordinance provide explicit permission for personal signs of the nature described above to be posted. The Planning Commission may also wish to recommend that utility poles not be included in the list of locations where such signs cannot be posted ( 34.4.E and 34.9.C.2). 8

9 5. POLITICAL SIGNS POSTED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY [SECTION 34.9.C.5.a] Staff proposes that political signs only be posted within the 31 days immediately prior to an election called by a duly constituted governmental body. The proposed constraints on signs related to political campaigns would make it illegal to post signs by candidates seeking the nomination of political parties through a party caucus approach. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend adding to 34.9.C.5.a, under Timing, the phrase or date of a publicly announced nominating caucus convened by a recognized political party. 9

10 6. ILLUMINATION [SECTION 34.10] Staff has proposed that one lighting level standard be set for signs within R, RA and S-3A zoning districts and a second standard be set for all other zoning districts. Staff further has proposed to set standards for lighting levels for places close to signs (less than 200 feet) and for places farther away than 200 feet, as well as from low (below 30 degrees) and high (between 30 and 90 degrees) viewing angles. Finally staff is proposing a standard based on luminance. Staff has made a significant effort to employ objective standards that are scientifically based. The study of signage lighting in Arlington seemed to indicate that excessive luminance is not a significant problem in Arlington. The proposed luminance standard is difficult to understand in the abstract. Few people have a useable understanding of candelas/square meter and would find in difficult to observe a sign and perceive whether it would violate a given standard. Moreover, the measurement of luminance by the meter employed in the study is dependent to a very large extent on distance from a given sign and the extent to which a sign fills up the viewing area of the meter. As such, it seems subject to significant measurement error. Given the current lack of significant problems and the County Managers ability to dial down brightness on signs above 40 feet, the Commission may wish to recommend that luminance be controlled through standards for hours, distance, and adjacency. It seems that these kinds of standards would be easily understood by the public and enforced by County staff. 10

11 7. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING [SECTION B] Staff proposes that, in general, architectural lighting not be considered to be signs if it is shown on an approved site plan and contains no commercial message. Staff has not proposed any illumination standard for architectural lighting. Architectural lighting can be as intrusive as lighted signage. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that architectural lighting be governed by the same luminance standards as signage. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that architectural lighting be equipped with a mechanism to reduce luminance if the County Manager finds it is too great. The Planning Commission may also wish to recommend that this issue be included among non-sign zoning ordinance amendments to be prioritized following adoption of the sign ordinance amendment and overall modernization of the zoning ordinance. 11

12 8. JUMBOTRONS [SECTION 34.11] No new Jumbotrons would be allowed following adoption of the proposed amendment to 34. Some years ago, the County Board approved a sign guideline that authorized one Jumbotron in each Metro station area. For unknown reasons, this policy was not incorporated into the text of Sign Guidelines for Site Plans. Jumbotrons, under limited but existing conditions, can activate/enliven an area while having minimal adverse affect on the health, welfare or safety of the public. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the County Board, under special exceptions authority, be authorized to consider and approve one Jumbotron per Metro station area only if it finds such a sign would not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. 12

13 9. GRANDFATHERING [SECTION B] Staff proposes that existing signage, including illuminated signage, can be maintained, repainted or refaced. This allows building owners to change the name or message on an illuminated sign when tenants change. Staff also proposes that any changes to existing signage other than maintenance and refacing move the signage on a building or project to be in greater compliance with 34 of the Zoning Ordinance as amended. This proposal would allow existing signage to be replaced, under constrained conditions, when the amended Zoning Ordinance would prohibit similarly situated buildings from erecting new signage. As a result, the achievement of an environment envisioned in the proposed amendment might never be realized. Should the County Board determine that it wishes to restrict the directions that signs may face or the conditions that they must meet such as hours of illumination, older signs could avoid complying with new requirements simply by retaining existing sizes, lighting and other attributes. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the County Board not grandfather existing signage. If the County Board adopts such a provision, any change to a sign would require coming into full compliance. 13

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA County Board Agenda Item Meeting of vember 5, 2016 DATE: October 26, 2016 SUBJECT: ZOA-2016-09. Amendments to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance, 13 and 18, to add provisions