City of Mountlake Terrace Sign Code Update

CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE SIGN CODE UPDATE

- SUMMARY OF WORKING DRAFT -

September 20, 2016

INTRODUCTION:

The City of Mountlake Terrace is in the process of updating its sign code. The update is in response to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision - Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, wherein the Court found that the Town of Gilbert’s sign code violated the guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment. The reason for this ruling was that Gilbert’s sign code regulated signage based upon content, making it unconstitutional. This ruling affected sign codes across the Unites States because jurisdictions often regulate signs based upon broad categories that, in effect, regulate sign content.

A different approach will therefore be necessary. Rather than specifying size, height and location limits for a particular use of a sign, the City will need to adopt standards applicable to any use or need while also ensuring that a person’s right to expression in traditional public forum (i.e., the right-of-way) is not unduly compromised. Accordingly, specific labels of real estate signs, political signs, garage sale signs, directional signs, etc. must be eliminated, and all will simply be referred to as “temporary” signs. Moreover, all temporary signs will be subject to the same material, dimensional and locational criteria. It will therefore be important to adopt temporary sign standards that are acceptable to the community for all uses and in all situations. The same principles apply to permanent signs. For example, if a city wishes to avoid the classic-sized billboard (as in its current sign code), it can no longer achieve this by a specific prohibition of billboards or off-premise signs per say; it can instead be achieved by stating how large any permanent sign can be in a particular zoning district, regardless of its intended use or message. Accordingly, cities that want to permit the classic sized billboard will have to allow all signs in the same district to be the same size as a billboard, and that may be a higher price aesthetically than many jurisdictions are willing to pay.

In addition to addressing the constitutional issues under the Reed decision, an update to the sign code provides opportunity to address the effectiveness of current standards and to also adopt new standards reflecting recent trends and changes in signage technology, particularly in regards to electronic signs, and signs that can now emit scents, sounds, and even personalized messages. Such signs impose identified traffic safety and nuisance factors that require careful regulation.

A current working draft of the updated sign code is available on the City’s website at www.cityofmlt.com (See News on the home page and look for the sign code update section). A detailed summary addressing the more salient features of the draft sign code, along with information pertaining to specific topics in the code, is provided below.

SUMMARY OF DRAFT CODE PROVISIONS

1. Definition of Sign. The proposed definition of “sign” in Section 19.135.290 includes not only the display of traditional graphic messages, but also non-graphic features used to identify a brand or image, including panels, spandrels, forms or architectural features not common to non-corporate regional architecture. This would include, for example, the yellow canopies over McDonald’s menu board stations that resemble the “golden french-fry”, or the colored Lexan panels on the canopies of gas stations, While these may not include graphics, and while they may incidentally serve other functions such as weather protection, their purpose is for branding and advertising the location of a product or service, and they and have the same visual impacts as additional signage on the premises. They would therefore be allowed under the draft sign code, but only within the parameters of allowable signage. The definition of sign further includes sign structures even if sign faces are later removed. This allows the City to require either the removal or maintenance of these structures if they are abandoned or otherwise become derelict. The definition also encompasses devices that stream or televise messages, which will address a recent trend in billboards and also trends to add small television-like devices atop point of purchase equipment like fuel pumps. Finally, the definition of sign includes attention-getting devices such as streamers, pennants, festoons, inflatables and balloons.

2. Exempt Signs. Section 19.135.030 includes a list of signs that are proposed to be exempt from the permitting requirements of the sign code. A few noteworthy exemptions include:

a. Temporary Window signs. Temporary signs placed in windows that do not cover more than 50% of a single window, or more than 20% of the total glazing area of a façade, would be permitted and would do not require permits. The 50/20 percent coverage calculation would include any permanent window signs, which would require permits.

b. Interior signs. Any interior sign located at least 3 feet from a window would be exempt from the provisions of the code, whether or not it is visible from the outside or not. The reason that 3 feet was chosen is that the building code requires that walkway aisles in commercial buildings be at least 3 feet in width. It is therefore plausible that an interior sign could be placed for internal viewing by customers walking down a store aisle even though it is incidentally visible to the outdoors. It is presumed that any sign closer to the window than three feet is intended for external viewing, and will in fact have the same effect as a sign oriented for external viewing.

c. Non-discernable sign. The only signs that would be regulated under the draft sign code are those that are discernable beyond the boundaries of the property by sight, sound or scent. Inclusion of scent reflects new technologies in advertising, whereby signs emit scents or odors to entice passerby traffic to purchase their products. This might be appropriate on-site, but it could become a nuisance to abutting property owners who are subjected to smells on an on-going basis.

3. Prohibited Signs. Section 19.135.040 includes a list of signs that would be prohibited. A few noteworthy prohibitions include:

a. Signs on Vacant Lots and Easements. The draft code prohibits permanent signs on both vacant lots and easements, ensuring that signs are not the principle use of either the lot or the easement. (See Section 19.135.040(H)). This would address principle use signs such as billboards and other off-premise type signs, where small easements are often purchased for billboard purposes. It would not prohibit off-premise signs or billboards per se, but they would only be allowed on otherwise developed sites, meaning that they would have to be included in the calculation of allowed signage for any on-site businesses. Also, billboards would have to comply with on-site size and height requirements, meaning that the typical sized billboard would not be permitted unless the City were to allow all on-premise signs to be as large as the classic billboard.

b. Abandoned Signs. The draft code prohibits “abandoned signs” and defines abandoned signs to include signs that have had their sign faces broken or removed and have not been refaced within 180 days.

c. Off-site Control of Signs. The draft code would prohibit off-site controlled signs. This is important in terms of regulating electronic message center signs because remote operators are often indifferent to local codes and can instantly reprogram signs to operate in a manner not compliant with local codes. For example, it is not uncommon for digital signs to be part of a network of signs programmed by a corporate office to reflect regional sale or marketing campaigns.

4. Regulation by Zoning Types. The draft code would regulate signs based on two broad zoning types - Residential and Non-residential. The term non-residential includes the typical commercial and industrial zones, but is also defined to address mixed use zoning districts, which are considered non-residential if streetscape and ground floor are characterized by commercial. (See definition of “non-residential” in Section 19.135.290).

5. Maximum Light Output. Good lighting is essential to effective signage. However, excessive lighting causes glare, which leads to poor legibility of signage text, hazardous conditions to drivers, nuisances to abutting residents, and adverse impacts on the night sky. This is particularly evident with electronic signs, where their flickering animation and bright light can light up the sky for miles and monetarily blind drivers by their glare, especially on a foggy night. (See discussion on electronic signs below). The draft code therefore regulates the maximum light output of all signs.

In lighting terms, a “nit” is a unit of visible-light intensity, commonly used to specify the brightness of a cathode ray tube or liquid crystal computer display. One nit is equivalent to one candela per square meter. The draft code would limit internally illuminated signs, digital signs, and electronic message center signs (as described below) to a maximum nighttime light output of 100 nits in non-residential zones and 50 nits in residential zones. While the 50/20

nit limitation ensures good legibility at night, a limit of 100/50 is deemed acceptable to some dark sky advocates.

6. Electronic Signs. Electronic signs include what the draft code defines as electronic message center signs (EMC’s) and digital signs. (See descriptions below). Electronic signage is a relatively new but explosive trend in advertising, which imposes significant traffic safety issues due to the means used in these signs to attract driver attention through flashy animation and excessively bright illumination. While the industry has sponsored its own studies to prove that there is no evidence to prove these are unsafe, there is compelling evidence to the contrary. If one were to “Google” the question, “Do electronic billboards cause accidents?” a number of articles will appear with headlines stating that there is no statistically significant correlation between digital billboards and crashes. The sheer number of such headlines would make one think that the question of safety is settled and closed. The catch is that virtually every study referenced by these articles has been commission by or associated with the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) and many contend that the studies are self-serving and biased. Moreover, most of the headlined articles point back to the same two oft-referenced studies, including:

 “A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio,”1; and  “Driving Performance and Digital Billboards: Final Report,”2

While hailed by industry supporters, the studies have been criticized as being commissioned for self-serving reasons and for lacking proper peer review. The Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) therefore commissioned independent peer review of each of the two studies. The review was conducted by Jerry Wachtel, CPE, and President of The Veridian Group, Inc. out of Berkeley, California. His findings were released in his study title, “A Critical, Comprehensive Review of Two Studies Recently Released by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America”. His findings were not flattering to either study. He stated,

“Since neither of these two studies had received public peer review at the time of their issuance, it was premature, at best, for the OAAA to make any claims of the validity of the findings. Also, since the accident study did not compare accidents in the presence of EBBs [electronic billboards] to accidents in their absence, the study presented no evidence, no less conclusive evidence, to justify the OAAA’s claim. In addition, since even a cursory inspection of the human factors study showed that driver performance and behavior did, in fact, deteriorate when EBBs were present vs. when they were absent, the OAAA claims seem difficult to support. Finally, the OAAA’s claim that it’s Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE) commissioned these studies to specifically examine

1 Study by Albert Martin Tantala, Sr., and Michael Walter Tantala, Tantala Associates, Submitted to: The Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, July 7, 2007” 2 Study by Suzanne E. Lee, Melinda J. McElheny and Ronald Gibbons, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research, Prepared for: Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, March 22, 2007.”

whether there exists “a cause and effect link between outdoor digital billboards and driver behavior” demands scrutiny since the research methods and statistical analyses employed in these two studies were incapable of determining causality.”

Wachtel continues, “Because of the public relations campaign with which the OAAA released and publicized these two studies, they have received wide press coverage in print, online, and in the broadcast media. Without exception, this coverage has presented uncritical acceptance of these two reports as presented, with no scrutiny of their scientific or technical soundness. As a result, numerous States and local government agencies have begun to modify their codes and ordinances that address the use of digital billboards along the roadside. Having completed this peer review, it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data, and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised. Even the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued a recent policy memorandum in which DBBs are given tacit acceptance under certain conditions, possibly based in part on the release of these two studies. Because FHWA remains concerned about the safety implications of EBBs on highways, and because of its stated intention to conduct or sponsor its own research into this issue, it seems to this writer logical that any such policy change await further developments from research.”

The concern over safety has convinced countries like Sweden to ban electronic signs altogether, and for both safety and aesthetic reasons, billboards of any kind (digital or otherwise) are banned in Alaska, Maine, Hawaii and Vermont.

Electronic signs could be prohibited locally, and it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that EMC’s not be allowed in the City. But since digital monochrome signs already have a strong foothold in most areas the draft code would allow digital monochrome signs with imposed size, density and animation restrictions that will keep them from dominating the streetscape and from creating unsafe distractions to drivers. Standards include:

a. Maximum size – 30 square feet. This will ensure that digital technology is not applied to signs the size of the classic size billboard. b. One electronic digital sign per 100 feet of street frontage in non-residential zones. This would require that owners of multi-tenant buildings coordinate among tenants how this signage will be allocated and/or shared. Note that the full-color display EMC would not be permitted in any zone, but the performance standards specified below would apply retroactively to existing EMC signs, which would become legally nonconforming.

c. One acre minimum parcel size. This will limit the number electronic signs along a streetscape while also avoiding the problem of smaller parcels being sold or let out to digital billboard operators.

d. No “motion” as defined in the code. Signs would be static and without the animation that distracts or startles drivers and that becomes a nuisance light show animating the night sky (which is especially problematic during foggy conditions). e. Required fade-in. To avoid sudden flickers that may startle or distract drivers, message changes would occur in a quick fade-in (1.5 seconds) rather than an instant flash. f. Minimum message hold – 10 seconds. This would avoid the distractions of rapid message change and ensure that drivers are not trying to read multiple messages while driving. Multiple messages lure drivers into trying to read each message as they pass by, creating undue distraction from the road (which is no less distracting that reading text messages while driving). g. No off-premise programming. If off-premise programming is not prohibited, jurisdictions will have an almost impossible task of enforcing the illumination and animation restrictions of digital signs. That is because many such signs are programmed by corporate offices for all of their regional stores, and most corporate offices will have no knowledge of (and perhaps no regard for) local regulations. h. Requires pre-set illumination limits with written certificate from manufacturer, with password protected software or similar to avoid end-user modification. This would ensure that the store operator does not either inadvertently or intentionally increase the intensity of the sign beyond local illumination limits after it has otherwise been inspected and found to be in compliance. This is a real problem that can only be avoided by such pre-set limitations! i. Illumination measured by nits rather than foot-candles. This is contrary to sign industry recommendations. The sign industry suggests measurement by foot-candles and provides detailed instructions on how to measure light output under this standard. The sign Industry does not suggest measurement in nits, arguing that nit guns are expensive and difficult to use. But the problem with the Industry’s approach is that: i. Measurement in foot-candles is based not upon actual light output, but upon ambient (relative) lighting conditions around the sign. This means that the more signs there are, the brighter the surrounding ambient lighting conditions will be; meaning that signs can be increasingly brighter without exceeding adopted maximum lumens; ii. The method to determine ambient or relative light output under the industry’s proposed method requires light measurement with the sign in various modes of operation. It has to be measured with the sign totally black, again with the sign at its brightest level with the sign face totally white, and at a specified distance from the sign based upon the sign size. This means that a code compliance officer could not drive by and quickly determine if the sign’s illumination complies with adopted codes or not; he or she would have to convince the sign operator to set up a meeting after dark to test the sign by going through the complex process of measuring its output in various modes of operation. The owner could refuse to cooperate, leaving the City unable to verify compliance.

iii. A nit gun, on the hand, allows the measurement of actual light (not relative light) at almost any angle, which can practically be done as one is passing by the sign in a vehicle. It is true that a lumen light meter is relatively cheap compared to the cost of a nit gun, but the additional cost of a nit gun is well worth the price if a jurisdiction wants to reasonably regulate light output of electronic signs.

7. Changeable Message Signs. There are three types of changeable message signs defined and regulated in the draft code, including both electronic signs and static hard copy signs. These include:

a. Digital Sign. A digital sign is an electronic sign with a monochrome display (e.g., amber colored letters on a black background). (See Section 19.135.190). Digital signs would be permitted in all zones, including residential zoned properties at least two acres in size. See more complete description and information on electronic signs above. b. Electronic Message Center Sign. An electronic message center sign (EMC) uses light emitting diodes to create text/graphics. These are the full-color, fully motion signs with television-type displays. (See Section 19.135.200). It is suggested that EMC’s not be permitted, and that existing EMC come into compliance with performance standards within a specified time period after notification. See more complete description and information on electronic signs above. c. Changeable Copy Sign. A changeable copy sign uses hard copy letters manually placed in letter tracks, or hard copy letters that are changed (flipped) mechanically. Many gas stations still use manually and mechanically changed signs for displaying gas prices. The draft code would allow one changeable copy sign per parcel, with additional signs permitted if they are at least 100 feet from the abutting street or right-of-way. This would accommodate the typical multiplex theatre that has need of multiple changeable copy signs, but their use is not limited to theaters to ensure content neutrality. (See Section 19.135.180).

8. Sounds and Scents. The use of sound and scents is an emerging trend in advertising and signage, especially with the billboard industry. New technologies allow the chemical reproduction of virtually any scent, which is then emitted from signs to entice passersby to purchase a product. New technologies also allow signs to recognize vehicle ownership and speak or display personalized messages directly to individual drivers, e.g., “Hello Jessica - turn in here for a great deal on your new car”. These can overly distract or startle drivers. The draft code would consider audible or odorous signs that are detectible off-premise as nuisance signs, which are prohibited. (See Section 19.135.040(C)).

9. Durable Materials – Temporary vs. Permanent Signs. Because signs can no longer be defined by their intended purpose or content, the only reasonable way of ensuring that temporary signs do not become de facto permanent signs is to regulate according to the durability of their materials. The draft code therefore defines temporary signs as those made of non- durable materials such as paper, corrugated board, flexible, bendable or foldable plastics,

foamcore board, vinyl canvas or vinyl mesh products of less than 20 oz. fabric, water soluble paints or chalks, etc. Signs made of any other material would be considered permanent and subject to all regulations of permanent signs. This provision would ensure that individuals do not use temporary sign allowances as a means of circumventing compliance with the more restrictive requirements for permanent signs. This provision would also ensure that permanent signs are made of lasting high quality materials that do not fade or tatter over time. (See definition of “Temporary sign” in Section 19.135.290. See also Section 19.135.100 for a more complete description of sign material regulations).

10. Freeway Orientation. While the ability to view the City and its development from the freeway can have positive economic development benefits, a freeway corridor dominated by signage can adversely affect a community’s image. For example, some stretches of the I-5 corridor south of the King County line are considered by many to be cluttered and unsightly, reflecting what some might call “a drive through the Yellow Pages”. Signs are dominant and continuous, products are situated to maximize their display, while landscaping and architectural presence are lost to the dominance of aggressive and often insensitive marketing techniques. While the draft code anticipates signs to be incidentally visible from the freeway, it limits direct freeway orientation of signs to those uses or businesses whose main entrances incidentally face the freeway. (See Section 19.135.110(D)).

11. Sign Measurement. The draft code states that the area of a sign is determined by the smallest rectangle, square, parallelogram or circle that encloses each word, name, sentence, or complete message.

12. Height Measurement of Free-standing Signs. The draft code would measure free-standing signs from natural grade, except that signs within 25 feet of an adjacent road could be measured from the elevation of the road. This would allow the road grade to be the point of reference for signs that are intended to be viewed from the road, but it would require fill around the base of the sign to avoid a looming appearance when viewed beyond the road. (See definition of natural grade, which defines it as the grade existing within the past five years, or the finished grade approved through a site development approval process. This ensures that grade is not artificially altered to facilitate a taller sign).

13. Glare Control. To avoid the nuisance and hazards associated with glare, the draft code requires that the externally illuminated signs have their lights shielded in a manner that the actual lamps are not visible beyond the premises. Even flat-lens light fixtures can leave the lamps visible from lower viewing levels. In such cases, back or side shields may need to be applied to the light fixtures. (See Section 19.135.090(B))

14. Opaque Background of Internally Illuminated Signs. To further avoid the nuisance factors associated with glare and to minimize the amount of light that otherwise creates nighttime sky-glow, the draft code would allow only the text of signs having internal light sources to be illuminated and require the background of such signs to be opaque. Illuminated text on opaque backgrounds ensures better legibility of signs at night, making them more effective

for advertising purposes. A fully illuminated background would nonetheless be permitted on what are defined as “logo shields” (e.g., Starbucks’ signature crowned woman medallion, or Chevron Oil’s signature chevron shield). These could be incorporated into the face of any sign, but their size would be limited to 8 square feet if they are fully illuminated. But if a sign owner wished to illuminate a larger sign face, an external light with a shielded light source would be permitted. External light sources are effective in minimizing light spill because their light is directed toward the sign and away from the viewer rather than emanating from the sign and toward the viewer. (See Section 19.135.090(C)).

15. Back-lit Panels. Back-lit translucent panels and spandrels, with or without text or graphics, are often used to catch attention and/or create an identity on corporate-style buildings, making them part of an advertising theme. These are particularly common on gas station/convenience stores, which often have illuminated panels on the parapets of both the store and service island canopy (e.g., Shell gas stations). Some stations also have illuminated spandrels attached to the pillars of the service island canopy (e.g., Chevron gas stations). Inasmuch as these have the same purpose and visual impacts as traditional signs, it is appropriate to regulate them as signs in order to fully achieve the sign code’s objectives. (See definition of “sign” in Section 19.135.290).

16. Portable signs. A portable sign would include any readily moveable sign, such as an A-frame or sandwich board sign, or pole sign mounted on a weighted based. (See definition of “portable sign” in Section 19.135.290). Most portable signs would be considered permanent signs under the draft code because of the materials of which they are commonly made (e.g., rigid plastic, wood, and metal). Permanent portable signs would require permits and be subject to the following standards (per Section 19.135.220):

a. Not allowed in residential zones (temporary portable signs permitted – see description of temporary sign proposals). b. Limited to one per business or tenant space. c. Maximum width/height for sandwich board type – 4 X 3 feet. d. Maximum width/height for pole mounted type – 2 X 5 feet. e. Allowed no further than 10 feet from primary building. If no building is on the site, allowed no more than 10 feet from site’s driveway entrance. (This will facilitate, for example, commercial parking lots). f. Displayed during business or operable hours only. g. May not be illuminated or use changeable copy. h. Requires right-of-way use permit if located in city right-of-way.

17. Accessory Signs. In additional to allowed free standing and wall signage, smaller accessory signs are often needed on a site for incidental purposes, such as directional signs. However, their use can no longer be limited to directional signs because that limits their content to that specific purpose, which is a regulation of speech. To avoid regulation of content, accessory signs would be permitted with any content or message, but the allowed number of accessory signs would be based on the number of vehicle points of ingress/egress, not to exceed four

per site. Their location would be flexible – they wouldn’t have to be at the point of ingress/egress. This should accommodate signage needed for identifying points of ingress/egress and for typical drive-through fast-food, espresso, carwash or banking operations. But because the draft code doesn’t regulate text, they could be used for any message or purpose, which is why they would be limited to a reasonable maximum size needed for incidental purposes. (See Section 19.135.150).

18. Drive-through Large Accessory signs. Larger accessory signs would be permitted for points of entry to drive-up windows. Again without regulating the actual text, these would facilitate typical menu board signs for fast-foot restaurants, banks and the like. Maximum sign size is proposed to be 30 square feet, with cumulative allowance for up to 45 square feet for each window point of entry. This would facilitate ancillary signage related to drive-up windows (e.g., “order here” “pay here”, etc.). These larger accessory signs would come with limits, including:

a. Signs must be fully screened from view of the street or right-of-way with landscaping or screening wall that matches the building. b. Sign cabinet must be designed to match the principle building, e.g., same color. c. Speaker at sign may not be audible beyond premises d. The signs must conform to EMC standards if they use electronic display.

Although the signs would have to be screened from view of the street, they would still be required to conform to design and (if applicable) digital sign standards because even with screening, they may still be incidentally visible from off-premise vantage points. Also, the lights associated with a digital sign can emanate beyond the bounds of the screening materials. (See Section 19.135.150(G)).

19. Wall Signs. Many sign code regulate the amount of permitted wall signage based on the amount of parcel frontage. However, parcel frontage may not adequately reflect the size and scale of the building on the site needing wall signage. The draft code would therefore regulate wall signage based upon the area of the façade upon which the signs are placed. (See Section 19.135.170). The allowable area of wall signage would differ between residential and non-residential zones, as follows:

a. Residential zones. Wall signage not to exceed 3% of the façade and 100 square feet is permitted in residential zones on lots 2 acres and larger. The minimum parcel size will ensure that larger buildings in residential zones such as schools and libraries have their typical signage, but without regulating the text because it is based on parcel size; not use. b. Non-residential zones. Wall signage not to exceed 5% of the façade is permitted on buildings in non-residential zones. Wall signage is also limited to 60% of the width of the wall plane to ensure that there is adequate “reveal” around the sign and to avoid a continuous band of signage.

Wall signage would also be subject to the following additional standards:

a. Reflect architectural features. Wall signage may not cover prominent architectural features. Its location would be limited to wall or fascia areas between architectural features, and its width is limited to 70% of the width of the feature to which the sign is mounted. For example a pillar 30 inches wide could have a sign 21 inches wide. b. Consistency in design. Wall signage for a single tenant would have to be consistent in design. For multi-tenant buildings, wall signage would be subject to conformance to a master sign plan. c. Additional signage on facades allowed. In additional to flat mounted wall signage, the draft code would allow window, projecting and suspended signs on facades in addition to the specified allowances for wall signage. (See below)

20. Projecting and suspended signs. Projecting signs are typically mounted on walls in a perpendicular fashion. They are effective in settings where buildings directly abut sidewalks and where customers may be too close to the building wall to see flat mounted signs facing the road. Suspended signs are typically mounted to a porch roof, canopy or beam and are either perpendicular or parallel to the building wall, but are not mounted to the building wall. Suspended signs are also effective in pedestrian settings when hung perpendicular to a building wall, and in any setting when visibility from the street is desired. Both projecting and perpendicular signs would be permitted in addition to allowable wall signage, subject to the following standards (per Section 19.135.230):

a. Limited to 3% of the wall plane b. 6 square feet maximum size. c. 25-foot minimum spacing between signs. d. Minimum 8 feet clearance when located over sidewalks or walkways.

21. Roof-mounted signs. The draft code would allow one roof-mounted sign per building as part of its wall signage allowance (i.e., its area must be deducted from allowable wall signage). Roof signs would be limited to sloped roofs only (not flat roofs) and would be restricted to the lower 1/3 area of the roof slope. Many cities do not allow roof signs at all because they can compromise the architectural integrity of the building form. The Planning Commission has suggested allowing roof signs if they are individual pan channel letters. The Commission found these to be more aesthetically pleasing than placing a simple box sign on a roof. (See Section 19.135.240)

22. Free-standing signs. Free-standing sign would include any sign mounted on a pole or base that is independent of any building or other structure. They would be permitted in non- residential zones on any parcel size, and in residential zones on parcels 2 acres or greater (This would accommodate the needs of the typical school, library, church, apartment building, or similar building in a residential zone that commonly has need for free-standing signage). The proposed number of allowed free-standing signs is based upon how many public street frontages a parcel has. One sign would be permitted for any public street

frontage 30 feet or greater. Sites without frontage would be limited to one free-standing sign per parcel. (See Section 19.135.210).

The proposed size and height of a free-standing sign is based on the street frontage – with maximum size being 45 sq. ft. and the maximum height being 8 feet. However additional size and height would be allowed - up to 100 sq.ft. and 15 feet high not to exceed 75% of building height - subject to the sign having a monument-style base and subject to more stringent illumination and design standards. Specifically, the sign based would have to be brick, stone or another material that better reflects the materials and architecture of the principle building on the site. The sign cabinet and associated trim caps would have to be bronze, black, or an earthtone color reflecting either the material on the sign base or the color of the trim on the principle building on the site. This would ensure that larger signs are integrated in, and reflect the character of, the site’s overall architectural theme. Note that this larger size and its more stringent design requirements would be an optional provision in the code; it would not be mandatory. (See Section 19.135.210(D)(2)).

23. Service Island signs. The draft code includes a section on service island signage. (Section 19.135.250). Service islands are typically associated with gas stations, car-washes, drive-up banks, and similar auto-oriented uses. While providing weather protection to motorists, service island canopies have incorporated so much signage that they have become de facto over-sized free-standing signs. For example, the fascia panels of many gas station canopies are completely covered in corporate branding panels and associated text, all of which meet the definition of “sign” in the draft code. Allowing uses that have service islands to have free- standing signs the size and height of a typical island canopy undermines provisions of the code that otherwise limit the height and size of free-standing signs. Accordingly, the draft code would limit the amount of signage to no more than one sign on the canopy fascia, not to exceed 20 percent of the area of the canopy fascia to which the sign is mounted.

Service island canopies sometimes include spandrels attached to the canopy support columns. (See definition of spandrel in Section 19.135.290). These would be considered signage under the draft code if fully illuminated, and would not be allowed. They would be permitted if not fully illuminated. Signage would be allowed on spandrels if it does not exceed 20% of the spandrel area, provided that the signage is deducted from allowable wall signage on the principle building. Signs attached to canopy support columns would also be deducted from allowable wall signage on the principle building.

24. Window Signs. The draft code would allow both temporary and permanent signs to cover up to 50% of a single window area, and up to 20% of the total glazing area of a façade. It would also limit temporary signs to no more than one per window (per Section 19.135.280(B)). This would ensure that the function of windows for both light and visibility is retained, which is also important for safety purposes because it leaves room for law enforcement to see what may be going on in a commercial building. It would also ensure that windows do not become de facto wall signs in their appearance. The draft code defines “window” to make it clear that window muntins (grids) are not considered separate windows, but that the glass areas

between mullions in larger window assemblies are considered individual windows for purposes of signage regulation. (See definition of “window” in Section 19.135.290).

Permanent window signs would be limited to individual letters rather than box or cabinet signs to both retain the architectural integrity of the window and to maximize light and visibility. Neon signs would have to have a translucent background for the same reasons.

The draft code would allow permanent signs in both first and second story windows, but would limit temporary signs to first story windows. First-floor limitation of temporary signs would ensure that buildings do not become visually cluttered by temporary signs because the only limitation on the amount of temporary window signs is the 20% total coverage limitation.

The draft code would regulate interior signs within 3 feet of windows. The rationale behind the 3-foot rule is that a minimum code width for an interior corridor is 3 feet, so anything closer than 3 feet is likely not meant to be viewed by someone inside the building. (See definition of “window sign” in Section 19.135.290).

25. Temporary Signs. Provisions for temporary signs in the draft code are both more restrictive and more generous than current code regulations. The more restrictive provisions reflect the City’s limitations under the Reed decision to regulate temporary signs according to use. Accordingly, signs that previously received great latitude, such as temporary real estate, construction, and political signs, must now be regulated the same as other sign temporary signs. No longer can the city limit farmer’s market signs to 7.5 square feet while allowing real estate signs to be as large as 32 square feet. No longer can real estate signs be limited to no more than 4 per site, while an unlimited number of political signs are permitted. The draft code therefore treats all temporary signs the same regardless of their intended use or content, meaning that the City will have to either allow all temporary signs to be as large as 32 square feet, or restrict all temporary signs to something smaller. Because more recent case law makes it is difficult to limit the number of temporary signs on a site or in the right- of-way, it is prudent to at least restrict them to a smaller size. Accordingly, the draft code would limit the size and height of all temporary signs as follows (per Section 19.135.270):

a. Within the public right-of-way in all zones – maximum 4 square feet, 3 feet in height (stake-mounted only). b. On properties in single-family residential zones: i. Window signs – one sign per unit, maximum 4 square feet. ii. Post-mounted free-standing signs - unlimited numbers per site, maximum 4 square feet, 5 feet in height. iii. Stake mounted and portable free-standing signs – unlimited number, maximum 4 square feet, 3 feet in height.

c. On properties in multiple-family residential zones: i. Window signs – one sign per unit, maximum 4 square feet.

ii. Post-mounted free-standing signs - unlimited numbers per site, maximum 6 square feet, and 5 feet in height (3 feet in height if stake-mounted or portable). d. On properties in non-residential zones: i. Window signs – One temporary sign per window up to 50% of single window area, up to 20% of total window area (including permanent window signs). ii. Post-mounted, stake-mounted and portable free-standing signs – two per tenant space, maximum 4 square feet, 5 feet in height (3 feet in height if stake- mounted or portable).

The actual use of the sign has often determined how long a sign would remain in place regardless of the durability of its material. For example, real estate signs are typically made of sturdy materials for durability and reuse in other locations, but they are only in place at any single location for as long as the subject site is being marketed. In that situation, the period of display is self-regulated. But the Reed decision opens up the use of temporary signs for any use, and recent case law precludes the time limits previously imposed on temporary signs. This could create a very attractive option for businesses looking for ways to avoid compliance with permanent sign regulations. For example, if a business wanted more signs than the code permits for permanent signs, it could simply install more durable temporary signs (similar to the quality of typical real-estate signs) and avoid compliance with permanent sign provisions. To minimize this outcome, the draft code would do two things: First, it would limit the size of temporary signs to four square feet in the right-of-way and up to six square feet for on-site signs in commercial and multi-family zones. Since most businesses want permanent signs larger than this, they may not find the temporary sign option to be as attractive. Second, the draft code would consider any sign made of durable materials to be a permanent sign that would be subject to all permanent sign regulations. Accordingly, the draft code defines temporary signs as those made of non-durable materials such as paper, corrugated board, flexible, bendable or foldable plastics, foamcore board, vinyl canvas or vinyl mesh products of less than 20 oz. fabric vinyl canvas and vinyl mesh products without polymeric plasticizers and signs painted or drawn with water soluble paints or chalks. (See definition of “temporary sign” in Section 19.135.290). As these non-durable materials deteriorate or fade, the signs will be removed – either by choice of the owner or under provisions of the code that require removal of temporary sigs that are in need of repair, worn, or dilapidated. (See Section 19.135.270(B) & (D)). These two provisions presumably make temporary signs a much less attractive option for a business’s permanent signage needs.

Temporary signs would also be kept under control in the right-of-way by allowing them only between the abutting property line and the back edge of the nearest curb, or where no curb exists, between the abutting property line and the nearest edge of the roadway. (See 19.135.270(F)(1)). This would preclude signs in medians, and they would also be prohibited on any roadway or sidewalk area. Also temporary signs would not be allowed in landscaped areas not intended for, or customarily used for, foot traffic. This would allow temporary signs in lawn areas, but it would ensure that areas of the right-of-way intentionally landscaped for street beautification using shrubs, flowers and other ornamental plantings are not tromped down and cluttered by installers of temporary signs. Finally, the draft code would

recommend installers of temporary signs to get the permission of the abutting property owner to install temporary signs in the right-of-way in front of their property. Because it is the responsibility of the abutting property owner to maintain the landscaping within the right-of-way in front of their property, that owner may not want temporary signs in the area that they are required to maintain.

26. Temporary Sign on large properties. The above-stated provisions for temporary signs would impose size limits that may be too restrictive for large sites needing larger signs for occasional or one-time events, such as construction signs, grand openings, or real estate marketing. Accordingly, the draft code includes a provision for temporary signs up to 64 square feet and 8 feet tall on sites at least two acres in size. Only one large temporary sign would be permitted under this provision, and the larger sign could not be used in conjunction with other temporary signs on the same parcel. (See Section 19.135.270(I))

27. Master Sign Plans. The current sign code has a provision for a “comprehensive design plan” for signage to “encourage the integration of signage into the framework of the building and architecture plan of the entire premises.” This is currently an optional provision that is approved by the Planning Commission and allows for sign code exceptions, subject to compliance with criteria that are not well defined. With perhaps similar objectives, the draft code would require that a “master sign plan” be developed for all multi-tenant buildings and projects. It would require the owner to determine how allowable signage would be allocated among tenants so that the City is not put in the position of having to deny permits to one tenant because another abutting tenant already consumed the allowable signage for a particular building. It would also require that the owner define what sign types are to be permitted on a particular building to achieve some continuity of design for the building and to ensure that signage reflects the architectural integrity of the building. (See Section 19.135.060).

28. Noteworthy Terms & Definitions. The draft code is based on significant terms and definitions that are crucial to the proper interpretation of the code. Definitions are included in Section 19.135.290. Some of the more pertinent terms defined in the code that are important for interpretation, for distinguishing between different sign code regulations, or that may not be clear without specific definition, include the following: j. Luminance a. Abandoned sign k. Motion b. Accessory sign l. Natural Grade c. Changeable Copy Sign m. Nighttime hours d. Digital Sign n. Nits e. Electronic Message Center o. Nonresidential zone Sign p. Opaque f. Façade q. Pan-channel g. Freeway r. Permanent Sign h. Halo illuminate s. Portable sign i. Logo Shield t. Sign

u. Sign walker y. Tenant space v. Spandrel z. Window w. Static aa. Window sign x. Temporary sign

29. Sign Variance Provisions. To address any potential impacts the draft sign code may have on a person’s practical need for signage visibility and/or their right for freedom of expression through signage, the code includes a section for sign variances. This is different than the standard variance provisions of the zoning code in that it is specific to signs and includes different review criteria than applied to standard variances. It more specifically addresses location and opportunity for visibility of signage, particularly for situation unique to parcels that would make signage difficult or impossible. Particularly noteworthy is the First Amendment exception/variance provision listed in the criteria. This provision could stand alone; findings would not have to be made for other variance criteria if a person could demonstrate that the strict application of the regulations of the code would violate his or her First Amendment rights. Decisions on sign variances would be administrative (approved by the Director) and would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. (See Section 19.135.070)

CONCLUSIONS

The draft sign code would be a significant departure from the City’s current sign code, both in its scope and it specific regulations. In many ways, the draft code is much better defined that the current code. It addresses more specific sign types than the current code and would also resolve identified inconsistencies in the current code. It would also provide more clear direction on process and procedures, such as application procedures, master sign plans, and variance procedures.

Many of the departures from the current code are significant and would require some uses so revise their sign types to meet the provisions of the draft code. This may be particularly true for real estate agencies that have traditionally used sign materials that would only be allowed for permanent signs under the draft code, and for politicians who previously enjoyed almost carte blanche permission to install signs of any size or quantity. But what the Reed case means for all jurisdictions, for all businesses and for all uses, is that it can no longer be business as usual in terms of signage. The Reed case imposes significant challenges to and changes in the way cities can regulate signs in line with First Amendment principles. Staff is confident that the draft code fully aligns with the Reed decision and that it would also result in effective and positive results for signage in the City.

NEXT STEPS

This item is schedule for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6100 219th Street SW, Suite 200.