Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-35 and Ordinance No. 2014-27:  Proposed amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), specifically Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and related amendments to Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions), and Chapter 10-90 (Maps); consideration of Resolution No. 2014-35 declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-27, adopting amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), specifically Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions), and Chapter 10-90 (Maps), by reference. 

At the Council Meeting of November 18, 2014
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-35 (declaring a public record)
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-27 for the final time by title only
3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-27 by title only (if approved above)
4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-27

The Council held three work sessions in 2014 to discuss the need for, and provide direction on, possible amendments to the Sign Standards (Division 10-50.100) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. These amendments are now presented to the Council for review and adoption. The second reading and adoption of these amendments was originally scheduled for the November 3, 2014 meeting; however, a majority of the Council agreed to move this final consideration to the November 18th meeting.

Council's possible adoption of the proposed amendments to the Sign Standards will not have a financial or budgetary impact on the Comprehensive Planning and Code Administration Program's budget. Later this year a proposal to amend the City's fee schedule will be presented to the Council for review and possible adoption. Proposed amendments to the fee schedule will establish a sliding fee for sign permits based on the area and complexity of the sign, rather than the flat fee charged now regardless of sign area and the time required for the permit's review.

COUNCIL GOALS:
11. Effective governance

REGIONAL PLAN:
Goal CC.1.       Reflect and respect the region’s natural setting and dramatic views in the built environment.  
Policy ED.7.1.    Support planning, design, and development that positively, creatively, and flexibly contribute to the community image.”

The Council has held three work sessions to provide direction to staff on proposed amendments to the Sign Standards - April 11th, May 12th, and July 8th. Council also held a meeting/work session on October 14th, and the Resolution was read by title only and first read of the Ordinance was held at the October 21, 2014, Council meeting.

Please refer to the Expanded Options and Alternatives below.

Since the adoption on November 1, 2011 of the Flagstaff Zoning Code by the City Council, planning staff, as well as staff that work with the Zoning Code on a regular basis (i.e. from the engineering, traffic, stormwater, housing, or legal sections/divisions), have documented sections of the Code where possible amendments would be required. Ideas for amendments submitted by Flagstaff residents have also been received and are being compiled with staff’s suggested revisions into a comprehensive document of suggested revisions to the Code.
 
In a work session on April 11, 2014 the Council prioritized amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) over other needed changes to the Zoning Code. All other proposed amendments to the Zoning Code will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council later this year or in early 2015. At a subsequent work session held on May 12, 2014 the Council provided specific suggestions and direction on where amendments were needed. Ultimately in a work session on July 8, 2014 the Council confirmed that draft amendments prepared by staff were consistent with their direction, and requested that the final amendments were to be presented for review and adoption as soon as possible.

The amendments proposed to the City’s sign standards attached to Resolution No. 2014-35 are based on direction from the Council at the work sessions on July 8, 2014 and October 14, 2014.

A report describing the proposed amendments as recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission is attached. This report provides a detailed overview of the more significant amendments warranting further explanation.

The memo to Council dated October 8, 2014 and the Track Changes version of most of the draft amendments that shows the majority of new text in underline and text to be deleted in strikeout have not been included with this Staff Summary as they were previously provided to the Council for the October 14th meeting.
 
Also attached to this report is an updated table that summarizes the more significant changes to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) based on whether a proposed change is more restrictive or less restrictive, or if it is proposed for deletion. A new column to the far right of the table describes the intention behind the proposed amendment and its source, i.e. Council or staff. The table also includes more detail on standards that are proposed to be increased or decreased, and any subjective statements have been removed. All changes are made in Track Changes format.

Follow-up from October 14th Meeting
During the October 14th public meeting the Council provided direction to staff on where certain changes to the amendments to City's Sign Standards were necessary. Also, additional supporting information in the form of tables, photographs, and/or illustrations was requested. A summary and description of these changes follows (note that the page number referred to below is the page number in the Amendments attached to Resolution No. 2014-27):

Page 50.100-8: Section 10-50.100.020 (Applicability), D (Exemptions) #11, Nonstructural Modifications and Maintenance: Amend paragraph b. so that face changes for all existing non-illuminated signs are exempt, regardless of whether they are conforming or nonconforming signs.

Page 50.100-18: Section 10-50.100.050 (General Requirements for All Signs), C (Sign Illumination) #2, Internally Illuminated Sign Standards: Amend paragraph a. to also include yellow as a background color that is not permitted.

Page 50.100-33: Table 10-50.100.060.H (Standards for Freestanding Signs): Under the section the "Street Type" sub-heading of this table add an End Note #3 which refers to the Nonconforming Signs Section (Section 10-20.60.110).

Page 50.100-63: Table 10-50.100.100.A (Standards for Building Mounted Signs in Flagstaff Central District): Correct the third row "Number of Signs" to read as "Number of Building Entries + 1" to be consistent with the current standard for number of signs per business in the Central District (i.e. two signs) and the approach established in this table for determining the total amount of sign area for a building.

Page 50.100-86: Section 10-80.20.020 (Definitions, "B."): Correct the definition of "building entry zone" to include a route between the primary building entrance and an associated parking area on a walkway.

Page 50.100-91: Section 10-20.40.130 (Sign Permits – Temporary Signs), D (Review and Approval) #1, Application: The alternate text originally suggested by staff under which the responsibility for applying for a temporary sign permit by a business owner has been deleted. After discussing this issue, staff agrees with the Council that there are benefits to having a landlord or property manager act as the agent on behalf of his/her tenants/business owners.

Page 50.100-100: Section 10-20.60.110 (Nonconforming Signs), B. Maintenance, Repairs, Alterations, and Removal. Two significant amendments are proposed in this Section in response to Council's discussion on how best to incentivize the reduction in height and area of existing nonconforming signs. In paragraph 3, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested that a new freestanding sign may replace an existing nonconforming sign if it is no more than 75% the height and area of the existing nonconforming sign. During the Council discussion on October 14th it was realized that this idea still did not work that well, and it was suggested that staff should explore whether it made sense to apply the percentage to the standard for a new freestanding sign, i.e. 10 feet in height and 40 square feet in area. Staff has conducted this testing, and realized that this solution still did not produce a good result. After thinking about it further, staff suggests that a better solution would be simply create the incentive by allowing an existing nonconforming sign to be replaced with one that is 25% lower and smaller in area than the existing sign. For example, an existing nonconforming Type A freestanding sign has an area of 120 sq. ft. and a height of 22 feet. The Zoning Code only allows a Type A freestanding sign to have an area of 40 sq. ft. and a height of 10 feet. The new sign, therefore, may be 120 x 25% = 30 sq. ft.; 120 – 30 = 90 sq. ft. in area. The height of the new sign would be determined as 22 x25% = 5.5 feet; 22 – 5.5 = 16.5 feet high. If this approach is accepted by Council, then staff recommends that the text in the previous draft that established a sunset date of five years for this provision is no longer necessary because it is beneficial to allow a property owner to use this regulation at any time. The new text inserted into this paragraph also clarifies that any existing nonconforming sign modified in accordance with the provisions of this Subsection will still be considered a nonconforming sign until full compliance with the area and height standards of Section 10-50.100.060 (Permanent Signs) has been achieved.

Staff has also inserted a new paragraph 4 in this Section to clarify what a property owner may do if they have an existing nonconforming freestanding sign. The current sign standards require a property frontage of min. 500 feet on a major arterial to allow the placement of a Type A and a Type B freestanding sign. The proposed code amendments reduce the frontage requirement from 500 feet to 400 feet to make it easier for property owners to erect a Type B sign if they choose to. Staff suggests that new text should be added in this paragraph to clarify a property owners right to remove and or modify an existing nonconforming Type A freestanding sign with a conforming Type A sign so that a new Type B freestanding sign may be erected to the full height and area allowed in Table 10-50.100.060.A (Standards for Permanent Signs by Use). On the other hand, if the property owner chooses to keep the existing nonconforming sign, they are fully entitled to do so, and they could reduce the height and area by 25% to modernize and improve the sign as allowed in paragraph 3 of this Section.

How do the proposed amendments help small business owners?
During the discussion at the October 14^th public meeting, some members of the public suggested that the sign code amendments favored corporations over small business owners in the community. Staff has not conducted an exhaustive review of the proposed amendments to determine if they support or hinder small business owners in the City, but offers the following as examples of some of the changes proposed that will make it easier for small business owners to advertise their businesses.

• Painted building mounted signs offer an affordable alternative to individual letter or cabinet signs.
• Standards are provided to allow for more tenant space on freestanding signs.
• The number of signs and the amount of total sign area for a building and an individual business in a multi-tenant building in the Central District has been increased.
• A new standard allows business owners in the Downtown Historic District to place stanchion signs in the furniture zone on the sidewalk to advertise promotional or seasonal sales. Under the current regulations these are prohibited.
• A new standard incentivizes the installation of a corner sign on the corner of a building.
• If a simple face change is proposed in a non-illuminated sign as a result of a change of tenants, no permit and review is necessary.
• The proposed amendments to the Sign Standards are intended to make them simpler, easier to read and understand, and apply.
• Businesses permitted under a Temporary Use Permit have enhanced signage opportunities, including the ability to install directional signs.
• Display boards to advertise daily specials (not limited to bars or restaurants) may be placed outside a business.
• Revised standards for temporary signs ensure greater equity for all businesses.
• Changes to the fee schedule will be proposed (this will be presented to the Council separately) to establish fees based on a sign’s size and the complexity of its review, rather than the flat fee in use today.
• Enhanced opportunities for advertising civic and non-profit events are included.

Illustrate how the Sign Code applies to signs facing a freeway (Interstate 17 or 40)
An illustration was presented to the Council in advance of the October 21^st meeting to show the conditions under which building mounted signs may face an interstate freeway.

Summary of height and area changes
A summary in more detail of where the increases and reductions in sign standards are proposed was also requested. Staff has included this detail in the updated Summary of Changes to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) - see attached.

Explain enforcement issues with vehicles parked as signs
Section 10-50.100.040.A (Location Restrictions) – Page 50.100-11 – provides revised standards that apply to vehicles intentionally parked to advertise a business. This concept is common in most sign codes in effect across the country, and indeed was included as a prohibition in the former Land Development and is included in the current Zoning Code. However, as written this standard is difficult to enforce as it is not as precise and clear as it could be. For this reason staff researched many other sign codes in effect in Arizona and in the US to determine how the section could be improved. Note that this section of the sign standards is not intended to prohibit the placement of advertising on a vehicle, and neither does it restrict the vehicle’s use during the normal daily conduct of the business. However, it does preclude a business owner from intentionally parking a truck or other vehicle as a sign to advertise their business. With this in mind, the amendment requires that when a vehicle is not being used to conduct daily business, it must be parked so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way, or if this is impractical, then it must be parked as far back from the public right-of-way as possible. Examples of vehicles parked intentionally as signs in the City (all of which have received notice from the City that they are in violation) will be provided to the Council in advance of the October 21^st meeting.

Staff has identified the need for a minor correction:
While preparing the final documents for inclusion in the Zoning Code after Council's adoption of these amendments, staff realized that there was an omission in Table 10-50.100.090.G: Standards for Temporary A-Frame or Upright Signs. A portion of this table is pasted below.

Table 10-50.100.090.G: Standards for Temporary A-Frame or Upright Signs
	Standard	Other Requirements
Placement to advertise promotional or seasonal sales	Private property only at the business location.	Not in public right-of-way or on public property. Shall not create a hazard for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. See Section 10-50.100.090.B.
Duration of use	See Table 10-50.100.090.F.
Placement as secondary signage in a multi-tenant shopping center	Private property only at the business location.	Only on the walkway directly in front of the store. Shall not interfere with pedestrian travel or encroach upon a required accessible path. Not in public right-of-way, sidewalks, parking areas, driveways, or landscape areas.
Duration of use	No limitation on the number of days they may be used.
Hours of use	Business hours only.	Removal at the close of business required.

The second row of this table (Placement as secondary signage) was written with the intention of allowing a business to place an A-frame or upright sign as secondary signage in front of their business location, subject to certain rules, such as maintaining a safe walkway or not placing the sign in a driveway or parking area. Further, as described to Council in previous meetings, the intent of this section was that it would apply to businesses located in multi-tenant shopping centers where the business is separated by a parking area from an adjoining street. There are many such locations along the major arterials in the City. However, as written, any business whether in a multi-tenant shopping center or not would be able to place an A-frame sign in front of their store provided the sign was on a walkway and in compliance with the other location restrictions included above. The unintended consequence is that there may be a proliferation of A-frame signs in front of businesses that are not in multi-tenant shopping centers and that are close to an adjoining street, i.e. a consequence that is contrary to the previously stated goal of the Council to reduce the clutter of temporary signs in the community.

Staff recommends, therefore, that the row should be amended by inserting a qualifying phrase to limit the use of secondary A-frame signs to only multi-tenant shopping centers. The row would be amended as follows: "Placement as secondary signage in a multi-tenant shopping center".

Not applicable.

The sign standards incorporated within the City's former Land Development Code generally worked reasonably well, although they were poorly written. At the time of the rewrite of the Land Development Code prior to adoption of the current Zoning Code adopted in November 2011, the sign standards were reformatted (e.g. paragraphs of text were consolidated into tables) but the standards themselves were not significantly changed, except with regard to building mounted signs where new placement standards were included, freestanding signs where standards for height and area have been moderately increased, and temporary signs. While Council and staff have heard some criticism of the proposal to moderately increase the height and area of freestanding signs, the intention behind this proposed increase is to reduce the clutter caused by the prevalence of many temporary signs in the City (many of which are semi-permanent) by allowing better signage opportunities for business owners in a more manageable way on a freestanding sign.

Staff, business owners, Flagstaff residents, and members of the Council soon realized that the sign standards were not effective as they could be, and they still presented issues by being complex in certain areas, hard to read and understand, and prone to inconsistency in interpretation.

The proposed amendments to the Sign Standards attempt to resolve these problems. Standards have been simplified, and unnecessary or duplicative standards have been removed (e.g. Building Mounted Signs). New standards to allow sign types not previously allowed in the current code have been included (e.g. Interpretative Signs). Further the standards have been reformatted so they are more logically organized, text has been simplified, tables have been consolidated, improved illustrations will be inserted, and a document that will be easier to read, interpret, and apply will result. 

The amendments to the Sign Standards are, therefore, a benefit to the community as they provide for and support the needs of business owners by establishing simpler, clearer, and more understandable standards that will allow them greater opportunities for advertising and promoting their businesses. Consistent with the Flagstaff Regional Plan though, the proposed amendments will also ensure that the aesthetic beauty of the City's natural and built environment is protected.

INFORM, CONSULT, and INVOLVE In a work session on April 11, 2014, the Council directed staff to complete amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) of the Zoning Code as a priority over other amendments to the Zoning Code. In two subsequent work sessions (May 12th and July 8th), Council confirmed that draft amendments prepared by staff were consistent with their direction, and requested that the final amendments were to be presented for review and adoption as soon as possible. Some members of the public participated in these work sessions and provided comment to the Council when invited to do so.
 
Staff has invited representatives from local sign companies to be involved in the development of the proposed amendments, some of whom participated in meetings with staff at City Hall. The proposed amendments were also presented to such local organizations as Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, Northern Arizona Builders Association, Northern Arizona Association of Realtors, and the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. Staff was also interviewed by KAFF radio on the proposed sign amendments on two occasions before and after the Planning and Zoning Commission's public meeting and public hearing, and on October 15th following the Council's last meeting.
 
A ¼ page display advertisement was printed in the August 8th and 10th Arizona Daily Sun in advance of an open public meeting at City Hall on August 11^th as well as the August 13^th Planning and Zoning Commission work session. The open public meeting at City Hall on August 11^th was attended by five City residents who provided useful ideas on the proposed amendments, some of which were included in the amendments later presented to the Commission on August 27th. 

At the August 13^th Planning and Zoning Commission work session three citizens addressed the Commission and provided their perspective on the proposed amendments to the Flagstaff Zoning Code. The commissioners also provided their own opinions on the proposed amendments. As a result of these suggestions, further refinements were made and presented to the Commission on August 27th.

A legal notice was printed in the August 12, 2014 Arizona Daily Sun at least 15 days in advance of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s August 27^th public hearing as required by the Zoning Code. Three members of the public addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission at their August 27th public hearing. Following the public comment period and some discussion, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Sign Standards subject to three amendments as listed below:

• Section 10-50.100.020.D. (Exemptions) - Subsection 9; Also include banner signs posted at City recreation facilities.
• Section 10-50.100.060 (Permanent Signs) - Subsection(11); Reinsert the standards to allow for roof mounted signs.
• Section 10-20.60.100 (Nonconforming Signs) - Paragraph B.3 (Maintenance, Repairs, Alterations, and Removal); Change the incentive value from 50 to 75 percent as the threshold to bring an existing nonconforming sign into closer compliance with the sign standards.

In mid/late August staff was able to insert a flyer into a mailing that was delivered to over 8,000 Flagstaff business owners who report sales tax to the City. This flyer was designed to inform recipients of the proposed amendments to the sign standards, tell them about the upcoming City Council public hearing, provide contact information if they had questions or comments on the amendments, and provide a link to the proposed amendments at the Zoning Code webpage - www.flagstaff.az.gov/zoningcode.

The City Council's October 21st public hearing was advertised with a legal notice in the Arizona Daily Sun on October 3rd.

When discussing the proposed amendments to the City's sign standards with stakeholder groups or individuals, staff has been upfront and clear on the scope of the amendments, and has explained when sign height and area increases are proposed or will be reduced, and has also clearly described the proposed changes as they affect the Downtown Historic and Central Districts, and especially, temporary signs. While admittedly turnout has often been low at meetings, staff has gathered useful ideas and suggestions from meeting participants that have been included in the proposed amendments.

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-35 declaring that the document entitled “2014 Amendments to Chapter 10-50, Supplemental to Zones, Specifically Division 10-50.100, Sign Standards” to be a public record
2. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2014-35 and, therefore, do not declare the proposed amendments to be a public record
3. Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-27 to amend Flagstaff Zoning Code Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) with related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures, and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions), and Chapter 10-90 (Maps).
4. Modify and adopt Ordinance No. 2014-27 to amend  Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) with related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures, and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions), and Chapter 10-90 (Maps).
5. Do not adopt Ordinance No. 2014-27 and, therefore, make no changes to the existing text in the Zoning Code regarding the sign standards.