HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 - NB-1 - Potential Revisions to the City Sign - 5/3/2011CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 2011
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO THE CITY SIGN CODE
DATE: . APRIL 21, 2011
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
KIMBERLY BRANDT, AICP, DIRECTOR
ITEM NUMBER:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, (714) 754-5611
mleealci.costa-mesa.ca.us
RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to the Planning Commission's recommendation, direct staff to initiate Sign Code
amendments in specific areas.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On April 11, 2011, the Planning Commission considered a list of possible revisions to
Title 13 provisions as they pertain to sign regulations.
The last major revision to the City's Sign -Code was adopted by the City Council in April
2002 as Ordinance No. 02=8. One of the major changes to the sign code at that time
was the prohibition of electronic changeable copy signs, and additional limitations on
temporary banner signs to discourage their usage as a substitute for permanent
signage. Earlier this year, City Council adopted an ordinance amending the sign code
to require a permit, as well as specific time limits, for temporary banner signs, which
went into effect last month.
During the April 11, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, several residents expressed
concerns related to the proposed modification to allow electronic changeable copy
signs as discussed under Item "E" in this report. As a result, staff notified the persons
who provided correspondence via email to the Commission, as well as several other
City residents and business owners, of the City Council consideration of these Code
revisions.
Discussion of Possible Code Revisions
Below is a list of possible code revisions identified by the Commission. Any additional
revisions recommended by the City Council may be incorporated into the Zoning Code
Amendment that will be brought forward to the'Planning Commission and City Council for
approval and adoption at a future date as a noticed public hearing item.
A. PROPOSED ACTION: Change the way building wall signage is calculated based on
the lineal frontage of the storefront, rather than the current method of the lot width plus lot
depth.
CURRENT REGULATION: 1.0 sq. ft. of sign area per lot width plus 0.5 sq. ft. of
sign area per lot depth for total signage of the property, including building signs
and freestanding signs.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: For building signage calculation purposes only,
apply 2.0 sq. ft. of sign area per one foot of lineal frontage facing the street or
parking lot, not to exceed 75% of the total storefront width. This criteria is
consistent with tenant signage for newer retail developments, including the South
Coast Collection (SOCO).
B. PROPOSED ACTION: Revise freestanding sign standards as they pertain to number
and separation on the same property.
CURRENT REGULATION: 150 ft. separation between freestanding signs on the
same site.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 300 ft. separation between freestanding signs on the
same site.
C. PROPOSED ACTION: Revise freestanding signs standards to eliminate signs on a
single visible (i.e., bare) support pole.
CURRENT REGULATION: No existing regulation.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Require support poles for freestanding signs to be
enclosed within a monument sign -style cabinet or similar structure equal to the
width of the sign cabinet itself and consistent with the architecture of the building(s)
on the property.
D. PROPOSED ACTION: Remove size limitation for painted wall signs.
CURRENT REGULATION: Painted walls signs cannot exceed 10% of the area
allowed for other signs (see item A above).
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Add an exception to painted wall signs for the
purposes of calculating maximum sign area consistent with that of other tenant
wall signs.
E. PROPOSED ACTION: Removal of electronic changeable copy LED signs as a
prohibited sign and create development standards.
CURRENT REGULATION: Prohibited, although it can be allowed through a
planned signing program (PSP).
02
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Based on the concerns expressed by residents of
the proposed amendment for electronic changeable copy LED signs, the
Commission requested City Council direction as to if changeable copy LED signs
for major destination retail development should be allowed. Examples include the
South Coast Collection, which was recently permitted to have such a sign, and
Triangle Square, which had proposed two such signs but withdrew their request.
LEGAL REVIEW:
Because the request is for direction to staff for the preparation of an ordinance
amendment, review by the City Attorney's Office is not required at this time. However, the
City Attorney's Office will review the draft sign ordinance once it is forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for approval and adoption.
A' /u'-,
v"
MEL LEE, AICP
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Sign Photo Examples
KIMBERLY BRAND ICP
Development Services Director
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Services Manager
City Clerk (2)
Staff (4)
Planning Staff (8)
File (2)
File: 0503113i nCodeRevisions Date: 042111 Time: 12:45 .m.
Sign Code Revisions
Attachment 1
SIGN PHOTO EXAMPLES
Examples of painted widows signs to be restricted:
Examples of widows signs to be allowed:
y
meq^ _....� _ � �` .. � if "�': •
m
-
O�f _
mnu