Loading...
Council Provided Information - 10/2/2024CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:October 1, 2024 RE: Monument Signs in Manufacturing Districts Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00970 BRIEFING UPDATE During the September 3, 2024 briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. They discussed a desire to allow businesses to identify themselves but don’t want a proliferation of monument signs in manufacturing districts. It was noted these signs are expensive and that would help self-regulate the numbers. Planning staff discussed different types of signs such as those on buildings are not affected by the proposed text amendment. In response to a question about allowed curb cuts, Planning said these are regulated in the parking chapter for City streets, and by UDOT for State owned roads. The petitioner addressed the Council and said directional signs are restricted to a relatively small size and that makes it difficult for drivers of large trucks to see them in time to turn into facilities’ entrances. The following information was provided for September 17, 2024 Council meeting. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a text amendment requested by YESCO sign company to amend the zoning ordinance related to monument signs in the city’s M-1 and M-2 manufacturing districts which are currently found in City Council Districts One, Two, and Three. Monument signs are freestanding with a sign face that extends to the ground or a base as shown in the image below from City code. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 17, 2024 Set Date: September 17, 2024 Public Hearing: October 1, 2024 Potential Action: October 15, 2024 Page | 2 Currently the zoning ordinance limits monument signs to one per street frontage, regardless of the frontage length. The proposal would allow one monument sign for the first 100 feet of street frontage and one additional sign for each additional 250 feet of street frontage, with a minimum 150-foot separation between signs. Development in the manufacturing districts is often on very large lots with multiple driveways leading to different buildings. Driveways may be designated for visitors, truck entrances, employee parking, etc. The text amendment’s intent is to allow multiple monument signs with adequate spacing between them to avoid becoming a distraction to drivers. It is important to note that the proposed text amendment applies only to monument signs and does not affect other sign types such as pole signs or billboards. In addition, the proposal does not change other requirements for monument signs such as size. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its April 24, 2024 meeting and held a public hearing during which no one spoke. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. One Commissioner who voted against the proposal expressed concern with the potential for monument sign proliferation on very long street frontages simply because they are allowed. The other Commissioner did not share why she was opposed. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION Council Members may wish to discuss whether they are supportive of the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission, or if they prefer different spacing between monument signs in manufacturing districts. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 13-15 of the transmittal, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the transmittal. Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies identified in adopted plans: Planning staff found that the proposed amendment generally aligns with guiding principles and initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake (2015) including Transportation and Mobility, Beautiful City, and Economy. In addition, Planning found the following sign related strategies, policies, and recommendations in the 1990 Urban Design Element are applicable: “Signage throughout the commercial/industrial areas need not be overpowering.” “Provide ample opportunities for business to advertise products and service without having a detrimental effect on the community.” Page | 3 “Consider sign design and location as an integral part of all development, not as an after thought.” Consideration 2 – Zoning Analysis & Best Practices: During their analysis for the proposed monument sign text amendment, Planning staff reviewed sign codes in several nearby communities. They found that some cities restrict these signs in manufacturing zones to one per street frontage, while others allow multiple monument signs. West Valley City: o Generally, maintain a minimum 100-foot separation from all other signs. o Limited to one monument sign per 200 feet of street frontage. o Properties with more than one street frontage may have at least one sign per frontage if there is a cumulative total of 200 feet of frontage or at least 100 feet of frontage per street frontage, whichever is greater. Magna: o One monument sign per 300 feet of street frontage in non-residential zones. South Salt Lake: o In commercial and industrial districts there may be any number of attached or detached signs provided their total does not exceed the maximum square footage of sign area allowed for the type of sign and the location unless a special exception is granted for unusual circumstances. Salt Lake City: o On August 27 the City Council approved an expansion of the Delta Center overlay zone to include the convention center blocks. Up to five monument signs per street frontage would be allowed in the expanded overlay. o Monument signs are limited to one per street frontage in all other areas of the city. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D (pages 26-27) of the transmittal outlines zoning text amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the transmittal for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 5, 2023 – Application accepted by Planning Division. • January 2, 2024 – Page | 4 o Early notice period begins. o Notice sent to all community councils. • April 11, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda posted to website, emailed to the listserv, and notice of public hearing posted to City and State websites. • April 24, 2024 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 14, 2024 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • June 25, 2024 – Signed ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division. • July 16, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.