Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br /> <br />Organization <br />1. The subsections were restructured to clearly state what type of signage was permitted (wall, <br />freestanding, or both). The sign types allowed are currently “stated” through a combination of <br />explicit and implicit statements for each zoning district, but the issue is not consistently <br />addressed in the Code. The proposed “Permitted Signs” to start each zoning districts <br />regulations ensures a clear and consistent interpretation of the Code. <br /> <br />Standards <br />Content changes/clarifications were made for the permanent sign standards for the P, C-1, C-2, I-1, and <br />I-2 districts. These zoning districts contain most businesses in Little Canada. The standards are <br />currently confusing and/or contradictory as observed on Page 7 of the current Code (Attachment 2)– <br />Section 916.050, 4a. <br /> <br />Staff have proposed the following changes/clarifications: <br /> <br />2. For stand-alone businesses, the proposed code allows two signs per parcel, either two wall <br />signs or a wall and a freestanding sign. There is no requirement to have two signs. A “bonus” <br />wall sign is allowed if the property has frontage on two streets. <br /> <br />3. Clarifies that the maximum sign area allowed for a parcel is the sum of all visible sign faces <br />(meaning both sides of a double-sided freestanding sign count for area). <br /> <br />4. The proposed code removes a line that states that states properties can alternatively have a <br />single pylon sign. This provision predates the last edit of the Zoning Code but a “pylon sign” <br />has never been formally defined in Little Canada’s Code. Additionally, a “pylon sign” is <br />essentially a freestanding sign and the existing provisions would adequately address the issue. <br /> <br />5. For Comprehensive Sign Plans, Staff is proposing to limit wall signs to one per tenant in a <br />shopping center which is not a standard under the current code. As a matter of administrative <br />review and enforcement, Staff will permit wall signs in shopping centers if they propose <br />signage that meets the 15% of “gross silhouette area” calculation, using their tenant space’s <br />width as an input. Should they look to exceed that measurement/allotted signage, Staff will <br />enforce the full requirements of a Comprehensive Sign Plan outlined in the Code. <br /> <br />Staff did not propose to change the allowed size of freestanding signs or wall signs within any of the <br />districts. The “Gross Silhouette Area” is a more convoluted measurement for sign allotment than Staff <br />have seen elsewhere, but it is not difficult to measure and, from Staff reviews so far, typically provides <br />a more lenient/generous allotment of sign area to businesses. <br /> <br />Temporary Signs and Noncommercial Speech <br />The Sign Code currently features standards/sentences related to temporary signs in a few different <br />places. Additionally, aspects of the temporary sign code are also outdated due to State and Federal <br />Court rulings over the last decade. <br /> <br />Organization <br />1. Staff created a stand-alone section for temporary signs which are currently bunched into the <br />“General Provision” standards. This change should improve the readability of these specific <br />regulations and make them easier to locate. <br /> <br />