CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION

January 19, 2012 Page 5 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR MEETING: January 19, 2012 ITEM: 4 STAFF: Meggan Herington FILE NO.: CPC CA 11-00113 PROJECT: Sign Code Revisions STAFF / APPLICANT PRESENTATION Ms. Meggan Herington, City Planner II, presented PowerPoint slides (Exhibit A). Mr. Brett Veltman, Development Review Enterprise Manager, continued the presentation related to enforcement of the sign code. Commissioner Hartsell clarified for the audience that the enforcement funding proposal is included in staff s presentation to address the Planning Commission s comments during their informal sessions. The fees are not included in today s proposed ordinance. Commissioner Phillips inquired of the time frame for current enforcement actions. Mr. Veltman replied the first offense requires the violator to comply within about two weeks, depending on the severity of the violation. Staff takes the first opportunity to educate the public regarding the sign code. Commissioner Suthers felt the enforcement staff position may be underfunded due to the growth of the city. Mr. Veltman replied that more resources are included in this revised sign code. The fees are not included in the sign ordinance, but will be presented to City Council at a future meeting. Commissioner Hartsell inquired if a legal nonconforming sign will be allowed to remain until a new sign is requested for a site. Ms. Herington replied yes, the legal nonconforming sign can remain until an electronic message center (EMC) component of a freestanding sign is requested. If the current sign is illegal now, it would still be illegal if this ordinance change is adopted. Commissioner Hartsell inquired if there is a provision allowing a flag-oriented lot with small street frontage to obtain larger signage based on total lot square footage. Ms. Herington replied that an owner can apply for administrative relief due to the orientation of the lot, but the lot would be restricted to the calculation based upon the street frontage.

January 19, 2012 Page 6 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION Commissioner Butlak inquired if EMCs are proposed to be allowed in historic districts. Ms. Herington replied that should a historic district contain a commercial property, the Historic Preservation Board would review that EMC sign request. An EMC is not allowed in residential areas of historic districts. Commissioner Butlak inquired of EMCs within Old Colorado City. Ms. Herington replied there would be limited freestanding signs due to small lot frontages. Commissioner Ham now excused. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Mr. Larry Barrett of Scenic Colorado submitted a letter prior to the meeting that was distributed to the Planning Commission (Exhibit B) and he presented PowerPoint slides (Exhibit C). 2. Mr. Gary Wilkes, owner of Designer Signs felt the proposal would improve business and aesthetics of the city. Mr. Wilkes referenced Mr. Barrett s PowerPoint presentation and felt there are no safety issues involved with allowing EMCs. He supported staff s recommendations. Commissioner Hartsell was astounded during the stakeholder process that the sign industry representatives believed that over 50% of the existing signs within the city are illegal, which also generated support for sign enforcement. Mr. Wilkes commended staff s efforts with the proposed ordinance as well as reinstatement of sign enforcement. Commissioner Magill inquired of the cost of an EMC. Mr. Wilkes estimated the cost would vary from $20,000 - $30,000 per sign. Commissioner Cleveland inquired of a smaller business s ability to afford an EMC. Mr. Wilkes stated many businesses, especially smaller ones, probably would not be able to afford an EMC. Commissioner Magill inquired if a sign company would verify that a customer s sign request were legal prior to the sale. Mr. Wilkes stated that he surveys the customer s property as well as ensures his company issues a legal sign. 3. Mr. Dwane Maples, manager of Gordon Signs addressed the increase in revenue to a business owner when purchasing an EMC. He opposed the proposed calculations for freestanding signage. 4. Mr. Gary Bradley, a member of the stakeholder group, felt the existing sign code is permissive and reactive. He felt that enforcement is critical to the success of the sign code revisions. He preferred Option 2 during staff s presentation, and recommended changing the EMC hold time to 60 seconds.

January 19, 2012 Page 7 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION Commissioner Cleveland referenced the EMC off I-25 in Castle Rock, and noted that sign displays a 60-second hold time allowing for a few messages to be displayed. However, at slower speeds a 60-second hold time would allow for only one message to be displayed to passing drivers. He stated similar timing is allowed in Fort Collins. 5. Mr. Rick Hoover, representative for Council of Neighbors and Organizations (CONO), thanked staff for their efforts involving the stakeholder participation and their hard work with the proposed ordinance. CONO is in agreement with the proposal; however, they would like to include setbacks between EMCs and adjacent neighborhoods. CONO was in agreement with the proposed enforcement and would like to see an actual dollar amount placed on signs to support an effective fine structure. 6. Mr. Steve Heieck, of YESCO Signs also thanked staff for their effort and supported the proposal. He was in support of Option 1 during staff s presentation. He felt this proposal will help reduce sign clutter. He supported sign enforcement, but suggested escalating fines for repeat offenders. He also recommended that hold times for EMCs stay within Federal guidelines. Commissioner Hartsell inquired of the exclusion of animation and flashing and if a 10-second message hold time is adequate. Mr. Heieck referred to the sign at the Pikes Peak Center with a hold time of 4-7 seconds and felt that is adequate. 7. Mr. Nick Kraft, President of Kraft Inc. currently owns eight (8) restaurants in the Denver metro area, all with EMCs. He is in agreement with Option 1 from staff s presentation. He felt a 10-second hold time is sufficient. He would like to see the removal of all illegal banners and felt that EMCs could replace the current use of banners. 8. Mr. Mark Hetzler, Walgreens Management also thanked staff and the industry for their efforts creating the proposal. He also preferred Option 1, which is similar to what is allowed around the country. He stated that Colorado Springs is the only city currently where EMCs are not allowed and finds that the EMCs are accepted by communities as a whole. Walgreens Management prohibits the same items directed by staff, such as scrolling messages, flashing messages, 1-2 second transition times, etc. 9. Ms. Judy Finley participated in the creation of the current sign code implemented during the 1980s. She begrudgingly accepts the idea of EMCs, but would prefer a conservative approach. She felt the 10-second hold time was too short and preferred a 30-60 second hold time with evaluation at a later time.

January 19, 2012 Page 8 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION 10. Mr. Jeff Cahill, Quality Signs distributed a business flyer and reference (Exhibit D). He supported staff s recommendations, but preferred the amount of allowed window signage increased from 25% to 50%. 11. Mr. Kevin Butcher, Cameron Butcher Property Management Company would like to see the city take on the role of enforcers for this sign proposal and create consistency in the regulations that allows him to clearly educate tenants regarding allowable signage. EMCs can be used as a tool to reduce sign proliferation as well as an advertising tool for tenants. He was not in favor of raising permitting fees to fund enforcement because that would punish the businesses in conformance. 12. Ms. Freddie Sparks, business owner on Platte Avenue opposed the calculations that would restrict her business to a smaller sign at a shorter height. STAFF REQUESTED TO SPEAK Ms. Meggan Herington addressed the restrictions that would be placed on commercial lots and how the signage space calculations were reached. She reiterated the options available such as administrative relief, coordinated sign plan (CSP), etc. The 10-second hold timing recommendation was based on Federal highway standards. The suggestion of setbacks between EMCs and adjacent residential neighborhoods can easily be addressed through the development plan process. Ms. Herington then addressed window signs and stated administrative relief is also available through a temporary banner permit for temporarily exceeding the window display square footage allowed. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of the allowance of only one EMC within a commercial center with a CSP. Ms. Herington stated that there are cases where more than one EMC can be allowed with a CSP should the tenants be located on opposite entrance/exit roads. She also stated that the allowance for additional EMCs can be addressed with each CSP. Commissioner Cleveland inquired of the allowance of Amber Alerts and off-premise advertising. Ms. Herington stated that Amber Alerts and community events would be allowed; however, off-premise advertising is not allowed. DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Magill thanked staff for the time and effort put into the proposal. He related his experience with signs and sign codes and the balance between image and sales. He felt the current sign code has created an anything goes mentality. He felt there is a need for the city to clean up its image with a critical need for sign enforcement. He felt the EMC component within the ordinance could encourage illegal banner/temporary signage for business owners that cannot afford an EMC. He also felt the ordinance is not sufficient for enforcement. He suggested a committee created to raise funding for additional sign enforcement to clean up the entire city prior to allowing EMCs.

January 19, 2012 Page 9 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION Commissioner Shonkwiler moved to approve Item 4 subject to Option 3 within staff s presentation. Mr. Marc Smith, City Staff Attorney did not recommend following this procedure. Motion failed for lack of a second. The Planning Commission addressed the sign ordinance in three parts as noted below: 1. SIGN ORDINANCE WITHOUT EMC & ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hartsell inquired of sign variances. Ms. Herington replied that variances would be reviewed administratively first, then they could be referred or appealed to Planning Commission. Those would be reviewed under the same review criteria in City Code Section 7.5.802. Thus, inserting the variance review criteria into the sign ordinance may be redundant. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of a buffer from residential properties. Ms. Herington suggested a minimum of 150 feet. Motion by Commissioner Suthers, seconded by Commissioner Shonkwiler, to recommend approval of Item No. 4-File No. CPC CA 11-00113, the ordinance repealing and reordaining Part 4 (Sign Regulations) of Article 4 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 7 (Planning, Development and Building) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs, 2001, as amended, pertaining to sign regulations with an evaluation of the amendments to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council two years following the adoption, with the exclusion of EMCs for consideration for this motion only allowing minor changes by staff. Commissioner Cleveland supported the proposal. This community is in dire need of cleaning up the signage, especially banners. Motion passed unanimously (Commissioner Ham excused). 2. EMC DISCUSSION Commissioner Hartsell could not support EMCs at this time. She was concerned with sending conflicting policy statements if approved. All economical objectives are focused on our environment, including natural backdrops of open spaces, Pikes Peak, parks, etc. which have deteriorated enormously. The existing signage is in need of cleanup to promote tourism prior to EMC proliferation. Commissioner Shonkwiler agreed with Commissioner Hartsell s comments. He felt that rejecting EMCs are is not a negative business statement, but felt those would not increase business or City tax revenue. With minimal sign enforcement proposed through this ordinance, he was concerned that EMCs would be difficult to enforce because a business could easily revert back to violations by easily changing the hold time on a computer.

January 19, 2012 Page 10 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION Commissioner Gonzalez supported the use of EMCs. He questioned whether they should be restricted to a coordinated sign plan. The financial or business impacts should not be discussed during a land use issue. He supported Option 1 of staff s presentation. Commissioner Butlak opposed EMCs because she felt they wouldn t support the Comprehensive Plan objectives of balance between the natural environment and business settings. She referenced a recent news article related to the EMC proliferation in Houston, Texas with bandit (illegal banner) signs that businesses use to counteract the EMCs. She felt that illegal signage will proliferate when EMCs are allowed. She suggested cleaning up the illegal signage before allowing EMCs. Commissioner Suthers was open to the concept of EMCs, but prefers cleaning up signage first. She encouraged that effort to citizens and City management with a focus on a clear, defined approach and enforcement as presented by staff. After cleanup, she is willing to support EMCs. Commissioner Phillips agreed with Commissioner Suthers comments. Commissioner Cleveland supported EMCs because other communities have introduced them in a tactful way versus the tacky proliferation feared by some. Motion by Commissioner Hartsell, seconded by Commissioner Magill, to remove the EMC portion from the draft ordinance (Item No. 4-File No. CPC CA 11-00113) at this time and reinstate the time, date, temperature and five character exception. Commissioner Hartsell did not want to give the impression that all of staff s hard work was thrown out, but the work staff has accomplished should be saved as a good starting point in about two to three years for future consideration. Motion carried 6-2 (Commissioners Gonzalez and Cleveland opposed with Commissioner Ham excused). 3. ENFORCEMENT The enforcement is not included in the ordinance, but Planning Commission provided recommendations. Commissioner Hartsell would like to send the strongest recommendation to both the Mayor and City Council that the City requires an aggressive code enforcement policy to help draw business and tourism to a city with a high quality of life. Commissioner Magill felt that the City needs to provide more adequate funding for at least two (2) code enforcement officers and their administration costs. Private funding could be sought. The Planning Commission s vote down of EMCs sends a message that

January 19, 2012 Page 11 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION the City doesn t tolerate illegal signage. He suggested the Planning Commission attend and address City Council during their meeting. Planning Commission supported Mr. Veltman s suggestion of funding enforcement. Mr. Veltman outlined the current enforcement process where a business owner is fined, which fines could fund approximately one-third to one-half of an enforcement officer. Mr. Anderwald suggested three (3) points of reference within a letter by Chairman Cleveland, with Planning Commission s authority, included in the City Council transmittal packet that considers the following points: 1) implement the proposal outlined by Mr. Veltman; 2) City to coordinate with the Colorado Springs Police Code Enforcement Manager to delegate one officer to enforce signs only; and 3) pursue citation authority for code enforcement officers. Commissioner Suthers requested all Planning Commission members sign this type of letter as opposed to just the Chair. Commissioner Shonkwiler suggested including raising private funding for the enforcement officer. Commissioner Magill suggested private funding for the first year until sustained by fines and fees. January 19, 2012 DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Sign Code Ordinance REPEAL AND REORDAIN THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE CPC CA 11-00113 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2011 MEGGAN HERINGTON PLANNER II LONNA THELEN PLANNER II Background Current Sign Code ~ 28 yrs old Industry and community interests want a modern sign code Needs updating to: Promote the positive contribution signs can make to the community Incorporate contemporary industry technology & marketing practices; Improve understanding, application, flexibility and enforcement of sign standards 2 1

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 4 Issue Areas Identified Code Clarifications Difficult to interpret standards Unorganized Address Aesthetic Issues Older corridors appear cluttered Community Sign Code Improvements Need a mechanism for site planning and flexibility Evaluate Use of Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) 3 Stakeholder Process Sign industry focus group in January 2011 o Over 20 sign companies attended o Early input from code users Broader stakeholder meeting in March o Chamber of Commerce o Developers o Pikes Peak Association of Realtors o HBA o Downtown Partnership o CONO o Planning Commission o Interested citizens o Economic development interests o Sign companies o EDC o Scenic Colorado o DRB o Property managers 4 2

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Stakeholder Process Working draft prepared/reviewed March through October o Community comparisons/modern codes o Best practices/industry research First draft released in August o Stakeholder group review and recommendation Presentations to special groups Public meetings November 8 th and 17 th City Planning Commission January 19 th Council action February 5 Summary of Changes Procedural Eliminate obsolete and repetitive provisions Tables and graphics better illustrate the standards Provisions for nonconforming and abandoned signs Define and clarify sign types and allowances Functional Permits Simplify the submittal requirements for a permit Clarify exemptions and prohibitions Roof top signs are prohibited 6 3

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Summary of Changes Definitions Update existing and add new Separate regulations from definitions Measurements Simplify calculations Add a geometric shape to measurement scheme Clarify freestanding sign measurements on slopes Allocation Clarify commercial center allocation Scale allocation on the use of individual properties and length of the building or length of property frontage Bonuses for the performance of specific properties 7 Major Elements Coordinated Sign Plan (CSP) Potential 15% bonus incentive Consider site location, sign placement, site architecture and landscaping Wall Sign Calculation o Addition of bonuses for building performance Freestanding Sign Calculation o Based on use of the property and length of lot frontage o Larger properties get bonus in number and size 8 4

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Major Elements Freestanding Sign Calculation Current Code - Each PBC district 12 acres of less gets 1 FS @ 150 sf North Academy PBC District 32 LP 20 LP 25 LP 56 LP 290 lf Sign 102 sf @ 20 tall 85 lf Sign 42 sf @ 7 tall 250 lf Sign 88 sf @ 18 tall 360 lf Sign 126 sf @ 25 tall New Code size allowance based on multiplier. li li OR CSP 985/1000 lf 1 @ 150 sf or 2@ 150 sf 9 Major Elements EMCs EMCs permitted for on-premise commercial use 1 per property 50% of the freestanding sign No flashing or animation 10 5

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Major Elements EMCs 4 regulatory distinctions o Message hold time 10 seconds o Transition Method Fade or dissolve o Transition Duration Less than 1 second o Brightness Auto dim between dusk and dawn to 0.3 foot-candles No temporary signs (banners and inflatable displays) Conversion to EMC loses legal non-conforming status 11 Enforcement Scope Of Work Sign Enforcement will focus primarily on three categories Clutter/Safety Violations Unsafe Signs Illegal street side signs Plastered signage Unpermitted Signage g DP or Sign Plan Violations Monitoring EMCs for flashing, dancing, etc. Compliance with DP hours or lighting level restrictions Expired banner permits 12 6

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Enforcement - Staffing Phase I - Reinstate Sign Specialist Position 50% dedicated to enforcement Estimated Outcomes Evaluated over 45,000 past enforcement cases Average sign enforcement rate equivalent to 37% of 1 FTE Projecting 700 enforcement cases per year based on 50% FTE Highest Rate of Enforcement of past 20 years Anticipate 80-90% compliance Phase II - Coordinate with Code Enforcement to utilize spot fines 13 Enforcement - Funding 14 7

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Outstanding Issues 1. Size of freestanding sign on lots with less than 160 feet of frontage o Option 1 35 sf and 7 ft tall o Option 2 64 sf and 12 ft 15 ft tall o Option 3 42 sf and 7 ft tall (proposed ordinance) 15 Outstanding Issues 2. Amount of window signage Staff recommendation 25% A stakeholder recommendation 50% 16 8

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Outstanding Issues 3. The use of EMCs for on-premise commercial advertising Setback from residential uses? 17 EMC Options Option 1 Approve staff recommendation - EMCs for commercial uses Message hold time 10 seconds Transition Method Fade or dissolve Transition Duration Less than 1 second Brightness Auto dim between dawn and dusk to 0.3 foot-candles Option 2 Amend ordinance - EMCs only with the Coordinated Sign Plan Maintain 4 regulatory criteria Option 3 Remove EMC component from proposed sign ordinance Reinstate the time, date, temperature and 5 character allowance 18 9

Exhibit: A Item : 4 CPC Meeting: January 19, 2012 Staff Recommendation Staff Recommends: Approve the Ordinance repealing and reordaining Part 4 (Sign Regulations) of Article 4 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 7 (Planning, Development and Building) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs, 2001, As Amended, Pertaining to sign regulations with an evaluation of the ordinance to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council two years following the adoption. 19 10