HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransmittal - 11/15/2024SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Start Date:
11/13/2024
Date Sent to Council:
11/15/2024
From:
Employee Name:
Warr, Katilynn
E-mail
katilynn.warr@slc.gov
Department
Community and Neighborhood
Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature*
Director Signed Date
11/14/2024
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
11/15/2024
Subject:
Text Amendment - Electronic Signs
Additional Staff Contact:
Amy Thompson, amy.thompson@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type*
Ordinance
Budget Impact*
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
Recommendation:*
That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related to electronic sign standards as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Background/Discussion (?)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On July 18, 2023, the City Council initiated this petition through legislative intent directing staff to provide recommendations on best practices for concerns such as brightness, dwell and twirl times, animation, etc. and ensure those related standards comply with state and federal law.
Currently in the sign ordinance, electronic sign faces are defined as electronic changeable copy. These types of sign faces utilize digital technology to display text and images that are controlled remotely. The most common examples within the city are gas station price signs, signs for multi-tenant buildings, and public information signs but any sign face using a digital display to convey information is considered electronic changeable copy. These electronic sign faces are permitted on any sign type (e.g. flat sign, monument sign, pole sign, etc.) allowed in the various zoning districts. As such, electronic sign faces are subject to the general standards that regulate all sign faces in the ordinance. The only regulation specific to electronic sign faces in the ordinance as it exists today is that any text or image on the display must be fully readable within 3 seconds. Sign faces that take longer than 3 seconds to be legible are considered animated signs and are not permitted under the existing code.
The proposed text amendment will only affect on-premise signs. It will not impact billboards which are regulated by 21A.46.160. It also will not impact gasoline price signs that are less than 50 square feet as they are exempt from sign regulations by 21A.46.040.
The Utah Outdoor Advertising Act (UOAA) regulates advertising along interstates and federally funded state highways, primarily billboards. While the standards proposed by this text amendment are for on-premise signs, the types of regulations proposed are similar in nature to those included in the UOAA. Additionally, state law does not prohibit local governments from enacting more restrictive standards for on-premise signs.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Updated Sign Definitions
The term “electronic changeable copy” currently in use in the ordinance is an outdated term. The proposed text amendment replaces this term with the industry standard “electronic message center” to provide clarity to those using the sign ordinance.
Definitions for dwell time and twirl time will also be added. Dwell time is the minimum amount of time an image or text must remain on display before transitioning. Twirl time is the maximum amount of time it takes to transition between images.
Electronic Sign Face Standards
In addition to updating the definitions, the proposed text amendment will create standards that address potential impacts specific to these types of sign faces; namely motion, brightness, malfunctions, and location restrictions.
Motion
The proposed standards require all text and images displayed on digital screens to be static with the only dynamic movements permitted during the transition between messages or images. The proposed dwell time, how long an image or text is on display before transitioning to the next message, is a minimum of 8 seconds. Twirl time, how long it takes to transition between displays, is a maximum of 0.25 seconds. The dwell and twirl times proposed are consistent with the existing standards for electronic billboards in city code.
Brightness
Electronic sign face brightness is proposed to not exceed 0.3 foot-candle from a specific distance based on the size of the sign face; this is an industry standard way of measuring light that takes ambient lighting into account when determining how bright a sign is. Each sign must be equipped with an automatic dimmer that can adjust the brightness of the sign face as the lighting conditions around it change. This kind of measurement is important to ensure digital signs can be read in all lighting conditions while minimizing the amount of light pollution created by these signs. Additionally, businesses with an electronic sign that are closed between midnight and 6:00 AM will be required to turn off their electronic sign faces during those hours. Businesses that are open during that period will be able to keep their signs on during business hours.
Malfunctions
In the event of a malfunction, each sign must automatically revert to a black screen until fixed. This is to limit the impact of bright white or flickering screens on the surrounding area.
Location Restrictions
The proposed text amendment also prohibits electronic sign faces in certain locations. These types of sign faces shall not be permitted in single- and two-family zoning districts. They also are prohibited within specific areas in the Northwest Quadrant overlay district to reduce the impact of light pollution on wildlife near the Great Salt Lake.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
Summary of Public Comments
After the staff report and Planning Commission agenda were published, staff received a significant number of public comments; primarily from members of the sign industry and business owners who operate electronic signs. The concerns raised focused primarily on the standards for dwell time, display hours, and animation.
The issue with dwell time was primarily that 8 seconds is too long, especially for smaller electronic sign faces, and it interferes with the full potential of these sign types. Business owners want to have greater flexibility with how long messages are displayed.
The concerns with display hours, the requirement to turn off the electronic sign face between midnight and 6:00 AM, were multifaceted. Business owners wanted to be able to advertise their services to the night crowd even when they are not open for business. There was also apprehension that this standard could potentially interfere with private signs that are part of the Integrated Public Alter & Warning System. Additionally, some members of the community were worried about the impact this standard would have on nighttime safety; they argued that electronic sign faces increase the amount of light at night and turning them off would make the streets and sidewalks darker and therefore less safe.
The standards prohibiting animation were also a focus of concern amongst business owners and members of the sign industry. Users of these types of signs want to have access to the innovative abilities that come with animation. Prohibiting animation stifles some of that creative opportunity. There was also the assumption in many comments that animation is currently permitted, and the proposed standard would constitute a decrease in property rights; however, animation is already prohibited under current code.
Planning Commission Recommendation and Considerations
The Planning Commission made a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment but, based on public comments, sent the following recommendations for Council to consider:
1. Look at a tiered approach verses the size of the sign in relationship to the dwell time and twirl time.2. Evaluate the appropriateness of a curfew.3. Better understand the importance or the usage of emergency messaging.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL:
Planning staff has provided some additional context in relation to the Planning Commission’s recommended considerations:
1. A tiered approach to dwell and twirl time.Planning response: A tiered approach would create different dwell and twirl time standards depending on the size of the sign face with smaller signs having less restrictive standards than larger signs. Such an approach would be challenging to enforce as each sign face would have a different set of standards. Instead, dwell and twirl times could be amended to decrease the minimum dwell times and increase the maximum twirl times for all electronic message centers regardless of size.2. The appropriateness of a curfew.Planning response: The curfew references the display hours standard that would require electronic message centers to be turned off between midnight and 6:00 AM. This standard attempts to balance the need of businesses to advertise with the City’s goals of limiting unnecessary light pollution at night while also not being a nuance to those who live nearby. Additionally, the motion created by these signs, primarily during twirl time, are more distracting to drivers at night than during the day. Based on research into nearby cities’ sign standards, options for consideration could include only requiring display hours if the sign is within a certain distance to residential uses or requiring the electronic sign to hold on a single static image for the duration of the night. While the
second option would not address nighttime light pollution, it would reduce the amount of distraction to drivers by not permitting any motion on the sign within the specified hours.3. Usage of private signs in emergency messaging.Planning response: Based on cursory research, it is not clear the extent to which private electronic signs are used in the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System. Staff can explore this issue more with the City’s emergency management team to determine if limiting nighttime display hours would impact this system and potential means of mitigating that impact.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, staff met with members of the sign industry to hear their concerns with aspects of the proposed text amendment. They reiterated the issues addressed by the public during the hearing but also brought to staff’s attention a standard that is vague and could be reworded. The standard in question reads as follows:
Each electronic message center shall contain a default mechanism that will cause the sign face to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign face malfunctions.
Signs can malfunction in a variety of ways. Some are barely noticeable like a single light fading, while others are much more impactful like an entire panel going black. The proposed language does not define what a malfunction is and therefore it is unclear which circumstances would require the sign to revert to a black screen. Additionally, the technology to automatically detect a malfunction and turn the screen off does not exist. As a result of this conversation, staff recommends editing this standard to read:
When an electronic message center malfunctions in a manner that causes the sign to violate any portion of the sign ordinance, the portion of the electronic message center causing the violation must be turned off until the malfunction is fixed.
The above considerations and recommendations are not reflected in the language of the proposed ordinance. Should the Council desire to include any of the recommendations in the code, the ordinance must be updated to reflect those changes.
Will the City Council need to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process (?)
Early Notification – On January 25, 2024, every registered recognized community organization was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. On February 12, 2024, staff attended a Sugarhouse Community Council meeting to explain the new standards. No other community organization responded. An online open house was posted on the Planning Division’s website from January 25, 2024 – March 27, 2024.
Planning Commission Meeting – The Planning Commission heard the petition on March 27, 2024. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed zoning text amendment with the considerations discussed above.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
PC Agenda of March 27, 2024 (Click to Access) PC Minutes of March 27, 2024 (Click to Access) Planning Commission Staff Report of March 27, 2024 (Click to Access Report)
Chief Administrator Officer's Comments
EXHIBITS: 1. ORDINANCE 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. PETITION TO INITIATE 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PC STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION
1. ORDINANCE
V1 1
Project Title: Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00669
Version: 1
Date Prepared: November 12, 2024
Planning Commission Action: Recommended 3/27/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
Amends sections 21A.46.020.B, 21A.46.070, 21A.46.110.A.3.b, 21A.46.120.E.4.b, and
21A.37.050.H;
Adds definitions for electronic message center, dwell time, and twirl time and updates other
definitions to reflect changes related to these definitions;
Deletes the definition for electronic changeable copy;
Changes all instances of electronic changeable copy to electronic message center;
Creates standards specifically regulating electronic message centers including standards for
motion, dwell and twirl times, brightness, on-premise use, display hours, permitted locations, and
sign controls;
Adds a standard for electronically displayed art to the exterior lighting design standard in
21A.37.050.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. If modifications are made as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation, those will be added and highlighted in yellow. All
other text is existing with no proposed change.
1. Amends Subsection 21A.46.020.B as follows: 1
a. Amends the definition of “Animated Sign” as follows: 2
ANIMATED SIGN: A sign, excluding an electronic message center changeable copy, which 3
involves motion or rotation of any part by mechanical or artificial means or which displays 4
flashing or intermittent lights. 5
b. Adds the definition of “Dwell Time” as follows: 6
DWELL TIME: The length of time that text, images, or graphics are legible on an electronic 7
message center. 8
c. Deletes the definition of “Electronic Changeable Copy”: 9
ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE COPY: The copy of a sign containing an electronically 10
generated message such as a public service, time, temperature and date, or a message center or 11
reader board, where different copy changes of a public service or commercial nature are shown 12
on the same lamp bank or message facility. The term "electronic changeable copy" shall not be 13
defined as a type of "animated sign" if the message displayed is fully readable within three (3) 14
seconds. Electronic changeable copy shall be considered, for the intents of this chapter, a sign 15
face type rather than a sign type. 16
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
November 12, 2024
V1 2
d. Adds the definition of “Electronic Message Center (EMC)” as follows: 17
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER (EMC): A portion of an on-premise sign face that is 18
capable of displaying words, symbols, figures, graphics, or images that can be electronically 19
changed by remote or automatic means. 20
e. Adds the definition of “Twirl Time” as follows: 21
TWIRL TIME: The time it takes for text, images, or graphics on an electronic message center to 22
change to different text, images, or graphics. 23
2. Amends Section 21A.46.070 by adding a new Subsection W as follows: 24
W. Unless exempt pursuant to Sections 21A.46.50, 21A.46.52 and 21A.46.55, all electronic message 25
centers shall be operated pursuant to the following standards: 26
1. Motion: Text, images, or graphics displayed on an electronic message center must be static. 27
Transition effects such as wipes, fades, or other special effects are permitted provided they 28
comply with twirl time regulations. 29
2. Dwell and Twirl time: Text, images, or graphics on an electronic message center shall not 30
change more than once every 8 seconds. Twirl time between subsequent static text, images, 31
or graphics shall not exceed 0.25 second. 32
3. Brightness: No electronic message center shall exceed a brightness level of 0.3 foot-candle as 33
measured at a pre-set distance. The measurement distance shall be determined based on the 34
area of the electronic message center using the following formula: the square root of (the 35
electronic message center area times 100). Fractions shall be rounded to the nearest foot. 36
Example: If a monument sign features a 50 square foot electronic message center, the 37
measurement distance shall be calculated as follows: 38
50 x 100 = 5,000 39
√5,000 = 71 feet. 40
The brightness level will be measured at 71 feet away from the electronic message center. 41
4. Display: An electronic message center shall be used for the identification of the on-premise 42
use. Text, images, or graphics advertising off-premise uses are not permitted. 43
5. Display hours: An electronic message center shall not be illuminated or lit between the hours 44
of twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight and six o'clock (6:00) A.M, except when: 45
a. A business is open to the public during these hours at the property at which the electronic 46
message center is located; and 47
b. The illumination of the associated electronic message center is limited to the hours at 48
which the associated business is open to the public. 49
6. Location: An electronic message center is not permitted in single- or two-family zoning 50
districts. Additionally, an electronic message center is not permitted in the Eco-Industrial 51
Buffer Area or the Natural Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District (see 52
21A.34.140.C and D). 53
7. Controls: 54
V1 3
a. Each electronic message center shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or 55
light sensing device that automatically adjusts the brightness of the sign as ambient light 56
conditions change. 57
b. Each electronic message center shall contain a default mechanism that will cause the sign 58
face to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign face malfunctions. 59
8. Prior to approval of any permit to operate an electronic message center, the applicant shall 60
certify that the sign face has been tested and complies with the motion, dwell time, 61
brightness, and other requirements herein. 62
63
3. Amends Subsection 21A.46.110.A.3.b as follows: 64
65
b. Sports Arena and Convention Center Sign Regulations. The following signs shall be 66
permitted on the blocks that contain the sports arena and convention center, described as 67
follows: beginning at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Temple and West 68
Temple Streets, heading south to the intersection of 200 South and West Temple Streets, 69
thence west to the intersection of 200 South and 200 West Streets, thence north to the 70
intersection of 100 South and 200 West, thence west to the intersection of 100 South and 71
400 West Streets, thence north to the intersection of South Temple and 400 West, thence 72
east to the point of beginning. Modifications to sign regulations within this overlay may 73
be approved as part of the design review process for any building that is subject to 74
21A.59. Signs shall not include off-premise advertising. For the purpose of this section, 75
signs may include advertising any business, facility, event or event or facility sponsor 76
which are located within the boundaries of the sports arena and convention center sign 77
regulations overlay. 78
STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS ARENA AND CONVENTION CENTER 79
Types of Signs
Permitted7, 8, 9
Maximum Area
per Sign Face
Maximum Height of
Freestanding Signs1
Minimum
Setback2
Number of Signs
Permitted per
Sign Type
Awning/canopy
signs
5 square feet per
linear foot of
canopy length
(sign area only)
Shall not be located
above the second
floor level of the
building for both
awning and canopy
signs
May extend 6
feet from face of
building but not
within 2 feet
from back of
curb
1 per first floor
window/door, may
be combined with
adjacent doors/
windows
Flat sign (general
building
orientation)
5 square feet per
linear foot of
building face
n/a 1 per building face
Flat sign
(storefront
orientation)
Flat sign
(storefront
orientation)
n/a 3 per business
storefront
V1 4
Flat sign display,
electronic
changeable copy
message center3
No larger than
1,400 square feet
per sign
n/a 5 per city block
Freestanding sign,
electronic
changeable copy
message center4
Not more than
1,600 square feet
per sign, which
may be located in
a continuous
round display
45 feet n/a 2 per city block
Monument sign 3 square feet per
linear foot of
street frontage
20 feet None 5 per street
frontage
Private directional
sign5
100 square feet 20 feet No setback No limit
Roof sign 5 square feet per
linear foot of
building frontage
20 feet above the roof
line or parapet wall
n/a 1 per building
Roof surface sign 30,000 square
feet6
n/a n/a 1 per roof surface
Special event light
pole sign
10 square feet 20 feet n/a 2 per light pole
Special event sign Sign may cover
up to 60% of total
building face7
May not exceed the
height of building
n/a 1 per street
frontage
Window sign 90% of total
frontage window
area (interior or
exterior) for
sports arena
events, not to
exceed 6 months
in duration for
each calendar year
unless otherwise
allowed by the
zoning
administrator.
No Limit n/a No Limit
Notes: 80
V1 5
1. Reserved 81
2. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 82
3. Flat sign, electronic changeable copy message center may display static or rotating messages or 83
operate as outdoor television monitors. 84
4. An advertising face on a freestanding sign with an electronic changeable copy message center 85
that is not oriented to a public street may be operated to allow full motion video display. 86
5. Private directional sign may include an electronic changeable copy message center within the 87
sign area. 88
6. To be located on the horizontal plane of a roof surface, primarily viewable from planes and 89
surrounding buildings located above the arena. 90
7. Advertising or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of sports arena events and 91
sponsors only. 92
8. Dwell and Twirl time: Text, images, or graphics on an electronic message center shall not change 93
more than once every eight (8) seconds. Twirl time between subsequent static text, images, or 94
graphics shall not exceed one-fourth (0.25) second. Outdoor television monitors are exempt. 95
9. Brightness: No electronic message center shall exceed a brightness level of three-tenths (0.3) 96
foot-candle as measured at a pre-set distance. The measurement distance shall be determined 97
based on the area of the electronic message center using the following formula: the square root of 98
(the electronic message center area times 100). Fractions shall be rounded to the nearest foot. 99
100
4. Amends Subsection 21A.46.120.E.4.b as follows: 101
b. Standards for the Ballpark Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West 102
Temple: Flat signs, construction signs, political signs, real estate signs, new development 103
signs, window signs, public safety signs, and nameplates shall comply with the table for 104
standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts 105
106
Types of Signs
Permitted
Maximum Area per
Sign Face
Maximum Height
of Freestanding
Signs1
Minimum
Setback2
Number of
Signs
Permitted
Awning signs 1 square foot per
linear foot of awning See note 1
May extend 6
feet from face of
building, 2 feet
from back of
curb face5
1 per first floor
door/window
and not to
extend beyond
1 foot on each
side of the
door or
window width
Monument
signs3,4
60 square feet of total
sign face area
including a base. The
base shall be 25% of
the sign height.
8 feet 10 feet 1 per building
V1 6
Pole signs
(triangle frame
structure)
180 square feet per
gross sign face.
540 square feet for the
structure
30 feet
No sign
projection over
the property line
1 pole sign
which allows 4
sign panels per
sign face, 1 of
which may
contain an
electronic
changeable
copy message
center4 and 1
logo sign (12
total signs for
the triangular
pole sign)
Private
direction signs3
8 square feet of total
sign face area
including a base. The
base shall be 25% of
the sign height.
4 feet 2 feet behind
property lines
2 per driveway
approach and
as necessary
for pedestrian
direction
Notes: 107
1. For limits on the height of building signs, see Subsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter. 108
2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 109
3. Modified from the standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts and required for the Ballpark 110
Overlay District. 111
4. An electronic message center changeable copy shall only be permitted on arterial street 112
frontages. Electronic message center changeable copy panels shall not exceed 50 square feet. 113
5. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 114
115
5. Amends Subsection 21A.37.050.H as follows: 116
H. Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed down to prevent light trespass 117
onto adjacent properties. Exterior lighting shall not strobe, flash or flicker. Electronically displayed 118
art shall comply with the motion and brightness standards for electronic message centers in 119
21A.46.070.W. 120
2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2023-00937
August 17, 2023
September 7, 2023
September 2023 – January 2024
January 25, 2024
January 25, 2024
March 15, 2024
March 21, 2024
March 27, 2024
Application accepted.
Petition assigned to Katilynn Warr, Principal Planner.
Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support
goals of the petition.
Notice mailed to all Community Councils
Application posted to the online open house.
Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to the
listserv.
Staff report posted to Planning’s webpage.
Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. Commission voted 7 to 0 to forward a positive recommendation with considerations.
3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00669. The City Council initiated this petition to amend the zoning ordinance to create standards regulating
electronic sign faces, currently referred to as electronic changeable copy. The proposed
standards will include regulations like brightness controls, display hours, and zones where these signs are not permitted. The ordinance currently does not include standards specifically regulating electronic sign faces for on premise signs.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE: TIME: PLACE: 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit https://www.slc.gov/council/agendas/. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slc.gov. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please contact Katilynn Warr at 801-535-6179 or via e-mail at katilynn.warr@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00669.
The City and County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-
535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. PETITION TO INITIATE
Item C5
CITY 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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 18, 2023
RE: Nonconforming Signs Ordinance Text Amendment
PLNPCM2022-00984
MOTION 1 (adopt)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance.
OPTIONAL MOTION (adopt legislative action)
I further move that the Council adopt a legislative action initiating a petition to review electronic sign
standards to comply with changes to federal and state law, and provide recommendations to the Council
on best practices for concerns such as brightness, dwell and twirl times, animation, etc.
MOTION 2 (reject)
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
5. COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PC
STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Petition Number: PLNPCM2023-00669
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 9:43:22 AM
Attachments:Petition Number PLNPCM202300669.docx
Please see the attached letter voicing my concerns on this matter.
Thanks Abigail Kramer
To whom this may concern.
I disagree with the new code that will restrict the electronic signs in our city. I feel like
these restrictions will have a negative impact on the business and consumer aspects of Salt
Lake. Companies that produce these signs will lose customers due to these changes.
Businesses that feel these restrictions hinder their company's ability to advertise may choose to
relocate. I would like to point out that it mentions businesses that are open between midnight
and 6am may keep their signs illuminated while they are open. Please consider what type of
businesses are open during this time frame. Places like bars, clubs and fast food restaurants. If
you are driving through the city and see only those signs what would your opinion of this city
be? Surely not a high one. I do not see any good reason to place a curfew on these signs. Only
negatives. When these signs are not in operation will they just be sitting there with dark blank
screens? How will this affect the lighting of Salt Lake? The streets and business centers will be
darker and less inviting. As a woman walking in the dark is very terrifying as is and removing
any other forms of light that illuminate the streets will only make it that much worse. Will this
cause and increase in crime? Please reconsider these changes being attempted. Please
consider how business will be affected. Both those who make the signs and those who benefit
from the use of those signs.
Respectfully, Abigail Kramer
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Amy Clayton
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sign Code Opinion
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 9:04:32 AM
Dear Salt Lake City Planning,
I would like to voice an opinion regarding the new sign code that restricts the use of electronic
signs. I oppose the curfew and mandating the 8 second hold times. When properties are zonedcommercially, electronic signs can help local businesses. Imposing restrictions on electronic
signs in commercial zones is bad for business.
Best,
Amy Y. ClaytonReal Estate AssociateYESCO Outdoor Media
1605 Gramercy Rd. Salt Lake City, UT 84104
801-755-7077 cell
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) New Lighitng Sign Codes
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 10:31:24 AM
Attachments:lighting.docx
Please see my attached letter.
Thanks,Anna Kramer
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app
March 25, 2024
Re: Electronic Message Center Text Amendment
To Whom it May Concern,
I disagree with the new restrictions being considered for Electronic Signage. We live in a world that
does not always function on the 9-5 schedule. By implementing these changes, we are limiting the
advertising to those that work/live on the 9-5 schedule. With issuing a curfew for these we are
impacting business that are trying to bring in business during these times. I also feel that it will limit the
lighting in these area’s and it is needed for the safety of the citizens in that area.
I hate business’s that does not have signage on their property that is well lighted and able to be seen
before I am passed their entrance. I depend on the signage to get me where I need to go. When I can’t
see it I end up driving more then needed.
Sincerely
Anna Kramer
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00669, Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 12:23:04 PM
To The Salt Lake Planning Commission,
I have been a resident of the Sugar House community since 1992. I understand that thecommission has come down with some pronounced changes towards electronic signs.
Electronic signs are not billboards. You should consider the various sizes of electronicsigns before you consider a one-size-fits all approach when it comes to static images
and hold times.
Creating a curfew for these signs is ludicrous. There are safety concerns, potential afterhours work, not mention anything regarding emergency services. This is bad for
business.
I urge you to revoke the proposed electronic sign changes back to your staff andencourage them to work with local businesses on a better outcome.
Regards,
Arnold Bayer Klemens
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Ben Olson
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) SLC proposed sign code change
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 9:59:34 AM
Katilynn,
Please pass this along:
I am hearing some news that SLC is proposing to change their electronic sign ordinance and
after reading the proposed changes it appears to be much more restrictive which will be verydamaging to businesses and their ability to advertise effectively. I strongly oppose this new
proposed change that restricts the use of electronic signs, the restrictions of a curfew, and thechange to mandate an 8 second hold time. The city has placed restrictions on where these
signs can and cannot be placed. These electronic signs should be able to be utilized freelywith minimal restrictions.
We've been through this time and time again, the more restrictions placed on businesses and
their way of advertising to promote growth, will provide them with more of a struggle and willhinder their ability to continue to be profitable.
Technology is increasingly changing for the better. Why would we restrict what's available to
us and back date us to a code that proves far less effective and damaging to business overall?
These restrictions are bad for business. Please reconsider.
Thanks,
-- Ben
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) New Sign Code Regarding the Use of Electronic Signs
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 5:11:30 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose the proposed ordinance to restrict the use
of electronic message centers (EMCs).
I believe that electronic message centers provide an extremely valuable mechanism forbusinesses to advertise and promote their business. Restricting animation and instituting a
curfew seems to provide minimal benefit to the community, if any, but will likely have anegative impact on the businesses that utilize the message centers. I am also concerned that
the more you restrict signs, the more businesses will leave Salt Lake and go elsewhere.
Furthermore, prohibiting the electronic signs in certain areas of the city will just make SaltLake even darker, more dangerous and less inviting for everyone. Illumination is not
necessarily a bad thing. It creates a warm ambiance and increases the levels of safety. Signspositively contribute to the community in that way.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Regards,
Chris Record
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Danny Ramirez
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Electronic Message Center (Proposed changes)
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 1:30:06 PM
Ms Harris & the City of Salt Lake Planning Commission
I'm writing to you today in opposition of the proposed code amendment change regardingelectronic message centers. As a citizen, I believe we have a fundamental obligation to protect& support business owners across the city and state. These business owners have invested asignificant amount of time, energy and in some cases, their life savings, to thrive in ourcommunity. It's important that we allow them to advertise their brand as well as the goods andservices to help support the community at large.
Mandating a curfew on their signs will only hurt their ability to maintain a presence in theirarea. We have citizens that work swing shifts and graveyard shifts each day and night. Weshould not be hindering the business owners right to advertise only to the people who work9am - 5pm. We need to make sure all citizens have a choice to see what is available to themno matter what time it is.
I believe that instituting more restrictions will have a negative effect on our overall economy.We should be more business friendly and support creativity to help promote growth. Bylimiting each message to 8 seconds and mandating "twirl" time, limits creativity.
Please work with the community to help grow the economy, not mandate more restrictions.
Danny
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) New Sign Code in Salt Lake City
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 2:16:28 PM
To whom it may concern:
I wish to add my voice to a current issue I was recently apprised of. I am a local supporter of
Utah businesses. It is my understanding that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission isdrafting a proposal that would add restrictions to local businesses' use of their electronic
message centers and billboards. I do not support this plan and I feel strongly that the voices ofbusiness owners are not being heard on this issue.
I won't comment on all of the changes proposed. Generally speaking, I am rarely in favor of
over-regulated business environments; it disincentivizes businesses from operating in ourstate. Instead, I will highlight the specific points that I believe to be particularly egregious in
infringing on the rights of businesses to use their property (signs and billboards) for attractingcustomers:
1. Limiting animations to static images.
2. Limits or regulations on the "dwell" and "twirl" times on graphics and images. 3. Regulations on display hours.
I have great faith in our local business owners to act responsibly in the use of electronic
message center advertising and the regulations above are, in my view, a regulatory over-reach.I'm sure regulations like these are well-intended, but they do not recognize both sides of the
issue. Some compromise on these plans will serve to show the City Planning body is notunfairly biased against business interests. Businesses have invested a great deal of time and
money to have these message centers as a major form of advertising. Regulations like thesehave the dual effect of inhibiting the usefulness of this advertising tool and forcing business
owners to look for more costly forms of advertising.
Thank You,
David Jones
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Dewey Reagan
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) FW: Proposed Revisions to SLC Corporation"s On-Premises Electronic Sign Regulations
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 12:33:23 PM
Hi Katilynn,
Please see the below. I entered an incorrect address for you the first
time…
Sincerely,
Dewey A. Reagan
Confidentiality Note: This email message, including any attachment(s), is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise
protected by law. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, or distribution of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender
immediately by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of the email, including any
attachment(s).
From: Dewey Reagan
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 10:36 AM
To: 'Katilynn.harris@slc.gov' <Katilynn.harris@slc.gov>
Subject: Proposed Revisions to SLC Corporation's On-Premises Electronic Sign Regulations
Good Morning Katilynn,
My name is Dewey Reagan. I am the General Manager for Reagan
Outdoor Advertising. I am writing today to express my concerns about
proposed revisions to Salt Lake City Corporation’s On-Premises
Electronic Sign Regulations before the Planning Commission on
Wednesday March 27th.
Reagan Outdoor Advertising operates completely in the “Off-Premises
Sign Industry” commonly referred to as “Outdoor Advertising”. I am
writing today about Electronic On-Premises Sign Regulations because
sensible regulations of all types of electronic signs benefits all of the
stakeholders.
Reagan Outdoor requests that Salt Lake City Corporation consider
eliminating two (2) of the restrictions in the proposal before the
planning commission:
1. The Hold Time for Images Requirement.
2. The Shutoff/Curfew Requirement.
Reagan Outdoor Advertising supports and eight (8) second hold time for
“Off-Premises/Outdoor Advertising” Electronic signs. However, this
requirement is not necessary for “On-Premises” Electronic signs. “On-
Premises” Electronic signs often are smaller and frequently places on
streets carrying less traffic then “Off-Premises/Outdoor Advertising”
Electronic signs. There for the Image Hold Time Requirement is
unnecessary.
In addition the Shutoff/Curfew Requirement in unnecessary given,
current technological features pertaining to light emission. Both the
“Brightness” and the location of “Emission” can be controlled to a
degree that eliminates the need for a curfew.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Dewey A. Reagan
Confidentiality Note: This email message, including any attachment(s), is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwiseprotected by law. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, or distribution of this communication isstrictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the senderimmediately by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of the email, including anyattachment(s).
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Please forward to your city planners:
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 9:11:37 AM
I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the sign code as it relates to digital electronic
message centers. As a supporter of capitalism and someone that understands the importance ofa vibrant downtown, which generates sales tax revenue and provides jobs, imposing such strict
limits on the ability for businesses to advertise their products, services and hiring needs is avery bad business and economic decision.
Further, if the city wants to support and encourage downtown living, walkable cities and
tourism, then the city needs to let the businesses that support these items advertise in a mannerthat builds business. Digital signage has become the number one tool for businesses to stay
relevant in a competitive marketplace, allowing for the opportunity to change their marketingmessaging hourly, daily, weekly, monthly in order to communicate to the community in a
timely manner.
I have many friends/colleagues that own businesses that have invested in digital signage inorder to advertise to their target consumers, and most of them would tell you that it has
allowed their businesses to thrive, and even in the case of the constantly changing covidregulations, helped them to even SURVIVE.
Gina Stratford
Supporter of CapitalismConcerned citizen
Caring community member
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Holly Robb
To:Harris, Katilynn
Cc:David Hancock; Frank Pignanelli; Clint Carver; Jeff Young
Subject:(EXTERNAL) SLC EMC text amendment response
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 2:05:48 PM
Attachments:image001.pngSLC EMC Text amendment response.docx
Katilynn – please see the attached letter from Maverik, Inc. regarding the proposed EMC text
amendment change. I will not be able to attend the upcoming hearing, but our lobbyist, Frank
Pignanelli will be attending and representing Maverik.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
March 22, 2024
Salt Lake Planning Commission
Mike Christensen, Chairman
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
RE: Electronic Message Centers (EMC) Text Amendments, Petition Number: PLNPCM2023-00669
Dear Chairman Christensen, Planning Commission members and Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner,
Maverik is the largest retail petroleum provider operation in Salt Lake City and Utah. Furthermore,
Maverik has demonstrated a long-time continuing focus on improving the lives of both our customers
and residents in the state. We dedicate resources towards the highest quality fuels for cleaner air and
our operations meet or exceed environmental requirements and regulations. Also, our commitment to
various educational, charitable, and housing causes is exemplary. Maverik is proud to be a good
corporate citizen.
Because we care about the communities and their residents, we appreciate the concern of Salt Lake
City regarding commercial lighting. Of course, such issues must be appropriately balanced with the
rational needs of a business sector serving these same individuals. Unfortunately, the proposed
amendments regarding electronic messaging do not achieve this balance.
The current language of the amendments does disrupt many critical business operations including
those of gasoline and convenience stores. Thus, we respectfully request that you consider the following
when reviewing the petition.
• All Maverik stores are in industrial and commercial zones. Thus, there is no immediate impact
upon residential areas.
• Advertising and signage are fundamental elements of business activities. Arbitrary limits and
curfews impede the ability of customers to access our operations, thereby diminishing valuable
tax resources to the city.
• Maverik has done nothing wrong with the current lighting structure. We applied and received
valid permits for the existing animation signage. Also, we in good faith relied upon the City’s
award of these permits when developing our business models and operations. To now restrict
the advertising and signage is unfair and contrary to sound public policy principles.
• A curfew on animation diminishes the investment Maverik has made in these high-quality
signs.
• Maverik is unaware of any problems that are directly attributed to the signage located on our
operations in Salt Lake City. Indeed, our customers provide positive feedback that they
appreciate the advertisement of gasoline prices, specials on products, and helping them know
where stores are located convenient to their lifestyles.
Maverik is able and willing to assist you in development of regulations that achieve your goals and do
not disrupt operations by our company. We wish to assist our customers not only through the provision
of gasoline and other products, but as good neighbors.
A balance between the various interests can be achieved with robust discussions and interactions. We
respectfully request this petition be tabled to allow staff and stakeholders to undertake such
engagement.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and work with staff on this proposed ordinance. If
there are any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Holly P. Robb
Director
Government Relations.
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Harris, Katilynn
To:James Carpentier; Norris, Nick
Cc:David Hickey; Rob@utahsign.org
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00669, Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 12:28:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Good afternoon James, Thank you for your comments, I have forwarded them to the Planning Commission.
I just wanted to take a moment and clarify an item mentioned in your comment about the sports arena. The sports arenaalready has a sign overlay (see 21A.110.A.3.b). The regulations, specifically footnote 4, are in the current code and not partof the proposed text amendment. The only thing changing in this overlay is the name of the sign from “electronic
changeable copy” to “electronic message center.” Because this overlay was created by the owners of that property with theapproval of the city council, we are not proposing any changes to the standards found within. Thank you again for taking the time to review the proposed text amendment and providing your thoughts.
KATILYNN HARRIS | (She/Her/Hers)
Principal Planner
PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Phone: (801) 535-6179
Email: katilynn.harris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV
From: James Carpentier <James.Carpentier@signs.org>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 11:55 AM
To: Harris, Katilynn <katilynn.harris@slcgov.com>; Norris, Nick <nick.norris@slcgov.com>
Cc: David Hickey <David.Hickey@signs.org>; Rob@utahsign.org
Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00669, Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Hello Katilynn and Nick:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Utah Sign Association and the International Sign Association. Both
associations collaborate with jurisdictions to assist in the creation of beneficial and enforceable sign
regulations. Please note the attached link below to a letter for the Planning Commission regarding the
proposed electronic message center text amendment on the March 27th agenda. Please forward this
letter to the Planning Commission. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Thanks
Here's the USA ISA comments Draft Sign Code SLC 3.25.24.pdf for you to review.
James Carpentier, AICP
Director, State & Local Government Affairs
International Sign Association
480.773.3756 / james.carpentier@signs.org
Signs.org / SignExpo.org
March 26, 2024 sent via email March 26, 2024
Chair Mike Christensen and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Nick Norris, Planning Director
Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner
Re: PLNPCM2023-00669, Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Honorable Chair Christensen and the SLC Planning Commission:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Utah Sign Association and the International Sign
Association. Both associations collaborate with jurisdictions to assist in the creation of
beneficial and enforceable sign regulations.
We are very supportive of some portions of the proposed amendments to the Electronic Sign
regulations, especially the proposed brightness limitations. We find that the brightness
limitations on electronic signs are the most critical regulatory aspect for electronic signs. Most
of the complaints that we hear throughout the country deal with electronic signs that are too
bright rather than how they operate. The proposed brightness limitations represent the best
practices for brightness and have been adopted by several jurisdictions in the State including
Salt Lake County. Electronic signs at the proposed brightness levels will appear very similar in
brightness to static signs. However, we do have several concerns with the proposed electronic
sign regulations for your consideration. Our comments and recommendations are in bold
italics.
Due to these concerns, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission refer the
proposed electronic sign amendments back to staff to work with stakeholders and resolve
these issues.
21A.46.070.W 1. & 2. Pg 7 of the Staff Report
These sections of the proposed draft code require a static image and an 8 second hold time.
We suggest that the Planning Commission consider an approach that is not a “one size fits
all” approach to electronic signs. We recommend that neighborhood type districts such as
SNB – Neighborhood Business District be subject to the proposed static images and 8 second
hold time. We recommend that other more intense manufacturing and commercial districts
allow animation including the Sports Arena (the ordinance proposes only static images and
an 8 second hold time for electronic signs oriented to a public street for the Sports Arena). In
addition, we recommend that flashing of electronic signs not be allowed. Page 6 of the staff
report cites State code 72-7-505 (1)(d): “A changeable message sign is permitted if the
interval between message changes is not more frequent than at least eight seconds and the
actual message rotation process is accomplished in three seconds or less.” This State code is
applicable only to billboards not on-premises signs. The Planning Commission should consider
that the size of the on-premise electronic display is smaller than the typical billboard and
therefore has the need for additional flexibility needed to effectively communicate with the
public.
21A.46.070.W 5. Pg 8 of the Staff Report
This section of the draft code proposes an illumination curfew for electronic signs between the
hours of twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight and six o'clock (6:00) A.M, except when a business is
open to the public. We are not in support of an illumination curfew for electronic signs, due to
safety concerns, after-hours activities such as deliveries, and emergency services. If the
business owner has the electronic display tied in with the Integrated Public Alert & Warning
System (IPAWS) which is FEMA's national system for local alerting that provides
authenticated emergency and life-saving information to the public, an illumination curfew
would obstruct the public from receiving these potentially life-saving messages.
21A.46.070.W 6. Pg 8 of the Staff Report
This section of the daft code does not allow an electronic message center in single or two-
family zoning districts. Since places of worship allow are allowed uses in single and two-
family districts, we recommend electronic signs be allowed for these non-residential uses with
reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that will afford protection to the residential
uses and allow for practical use of electronic signs.
Compliance with Plan Salt Lake and Zoning Standards
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle 12 states “A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an
environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive, pg 14.” We believe that the
elimination of existing rights on the operation of electronic signs and proposed illumination
curfew conflicts with this guiding principle since the proposed regulations may not foster a
desirable environment for commerce to thrive.
Zoning Code
21A.02.030: PURPOSE AND INTENT E. G.
Section E. of the zoning code purpose and intent states “protect the tax base” and section G.
states “to foster the City's industrial, business and residential development.” We believe that
the elimination of existing rights on the operation of electronic signs and proposed
illumination curfew conflicts with Section E and G portions of the purpose and intent of the
zoning code.
Sign Code
21A.46.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT
Sections 6. of the Sign Code purpose states, “Safeguard and enhance property values” and
Section 7 states “protect public and private investment in buildings and open space.” We
believe that the elimination of existing rights on the operation of electronic signs and
proposed illumination curfew conflicts with Sections 6 and 7 of the sign code purpose.
Therefore, due to these concerns, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission refer
the proposed electronic sign amendments back to staff to work with stakeholders and resolve
these issues.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments and recommendations. Due not hesitate to
contact me with any questions at james.carpentier@signs.org or 480-773-3756.
Sincerely,
James Carpentier AICP
Director State & Local Government Affairs
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00669, Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 2:02:54 PM
Honorable Chair Christensen and the SLC Planning Commission:
I am contacting you as a concerned resident to some of the proposed regulations. There are somepositives in the proposal as well which include the limitation on the brightness of electronic signs.
Right now there is a bright spotlight on Salt Lake and what the future looks like, particularly with
sports teams in Salt Lake. It is still sad to see that Real Salt Lake ended up in Sandy.
I feel Salt Lake has a great opportunity to look at digital signage differently than they ever havebefore. There have been discussions for several years about sports and entertainment districts. Ihave visited many cities around the country that have these types of areas a part of their city. Theycan be tremendous gathering places and locations for businesses to thrive. One of the keycomponents of the districts I have visited is digital signage. Some of the proposed guidelines wouldnegatively impact any possibility of fully maximizing an entertainment district.
Lastly, digital signage can be a source to promote positive messages. This includes but is not limitedto Amber Alerts, recognition of community events, holidays, etc. Businesses often will incorporatethose throughout their advertising and several reducing the hours they can advertise on electronicsignage could impact the willingness of business owners to incorporate other positive messages thatbenefit the community.
I urge you to reconsider many of the suggested changes.
Thanks,
Josh
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppsing new sign codes
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 9:20:53 AM
Signs have been part of the advertising lanscape for hundreds of years.
Salt Lake City has a long legacy of beautiful signs that add to the environment.
If you want to build an evolving city, signs & advertsing will be a part of that.
Electronic signs are THE future. They offer a multitude of advertising opportunities for local business'.
I would focus on all the destruction of personal property to build condos and aparments that go unrented
all in the name of creating wealth for a very few investors.
Larry Cohen
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposing New Sign Code Resrictions
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 6:58:01 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to express my concern for the proposed ordinance to restrict the use of electronic
message centers (EMCs) in Salt Lake City. EMC's provide a modern form of advertising forbusinesses. Downtown Salt Lake is growing and gaining a nightlife that the city has never had
before. It's important to keep that night life alive by keeping good businesses in the area.Taking away their method of advertisement means that we will lose the business and Salt Lake
won't grow into the booming downtown it has the potential to be. Please consider myopposition to this new sign code.
Regards,
Madeline Christopher
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Nathan Young
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Salt Lake City / Sign Code
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 2:14:42 PM
Dear Salt Lake Planning Commission,
I am against the proposed changes to the sign code. I love the mountains and all that Salt Lake
has to offer. However, when it's time to go out for an evening and enjoy a nice meal, attend an
event, or simply spend time outdoors, Salt Lake City is not an attractive and safe spot to do so.
I am enthusiastic about the funding of the Capital City Revitalization Zone Act and itspotential impact on the City. If the proposed sign code changes are adopted, they will harm the
city and its businesses, making Salt Lake City less conducive to commerce, advertising, and
growth. All the while compounding the safety challenges we already face.
For Salt Lake City to prosper, local commerce and commercial activities must thrive, but these
sign code changes will stifle all of that.
I urge you not to adopt the new sign code. Thank you for your consideration.
-- Nathan
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Salt Lake Sign Code Changes
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 4:00:48 PM
Katilynn/ Salt Lake City Planning Staff,
I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to the sign code for LED message signs. Thiscode change would be another step in the wrong direction for Salt Lake City. These types of
signs draw consumers into commercial zones and help foster economic vibrancy in urbanareas.
Everyone is aware of New York's Times Square, but many don't realize that many other cities
across the US are relaxing their sign codes to foster economic development. Denver, Phoenix,and even Los Angeles are examples of cities in the Western US where new electronic message
signs are revitalizing downtown areas.
Please reconsider further regulation and instead focus on ways that signs can draw people toSalt Lake City and revitalize our commercial areas.
Sincerely,
Ryan Young
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed New Sign Code
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 3:36:12 PM
Hi Katilynn,
I’ve just been made aware of a proposed new sign code that would be very damaging to Salt
Lake businesses including mine. I oppose this new sign code for a multitude of reasons. First
of all, an electronic sign is a critical part of driving traffic to my small business. We use the
sign to inform customers about changes inside the store, upcoming sales, etc. The ability to
have a non-static method of disseminating information to our customers is very important. I
don’t agree with imposing a curfew except maybe in single family housing neighborhoods. I
oppose government interference in mandating any duration of hold time for a sign. Videos are
more effective than still images and are an important piece of a marketing mix. Commercial
zones are designed to be places were commercial business can thrive. Zoning and code
restrictions in commercial zones should be minimal – as should be any government
interference with commerce.
I’m still reeling from being prohibited in constructing a building that is more than 30 feet high
on my property at 2191 South 700 East. Since I was refused permission about 5 years ago, a 6-
story building was constructed directly across the street, and another constructed about 80
feet south of my property. This is patently unfair!!! It’s difficult for a business owner who tries
to follow the rules to succeed when the city is constantly putting business killing restrictions in
place.
I like electronic signs. They help our local businesses. And further restrictions are bad for
businesses. We collect and pay taxes. Kill us, and you kill your revenue source. This new sign
ordinance could be yet another wound that combined with others – like taking over a year to
get approval on construction permits on another project in the city which delayed a store
opening for 18 months -- will eventually prove fatal for businesses in the city.
Sincerely,
Shauna Sloan
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Restrictions to the Existing Sign Code Related to Electronic Signs
Date:Monday, March 25, 2024 10:47:07 AM
To the Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commision Members:
I want to express my oppostion to the proposed changes to the Sign Code related to
electronic message signs.
I have many reasons for opposing these restrictions. Let me just list a few:
1. These signs represent a very significant investment by property owners who use them to
advertise to the public and to enhance the value of their business. They invest in these
signs in good faith, relying upon the consistency of existing codes and regulations. As a
former resident of California, I have seen the damage done to business through this kind of
over regulation. This is one of the primary reasons bunesses are fleeing California in great
numbers.
2. In my travels to different parts of the country, I always comment to others when I see a
city that allows well designed, bright and informative signs. I rely on the electronic signs
for information, directions, and information about the business. They are particulary
valuable at night, as long as they are not too bright.
3. We can never have too much light in places people congregate at night. People need to
feel safe and secure. City lighting is helpful, but signs, and in particular, electronic message
signs provide additional light and security. It is simply faulty thinking on the part of
planners to think the proposed changes will help citizens to feel more secure.
Again,I strongly oppose these proposed changes and suggest they be reconsidered with the
help and input of the very businesses that would be most impacted.
Sincerely,
Stephen E. Jones
From:Annette Gaddis
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Electronic Message Centers
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1:59:32 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
I would like to go on record as opposing the new sign code that limits the use of electronic signs.
Our city offers fine restaurants, world class hotels and well known sports teams most of which depend on electronic
signs to inform patrons of their services. Please don’t limit the opportunity to build business by imposing a
restrictive sign code.
Sent from my iPad
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Augusta Rose
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Electronic Signs
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:27:06 AM
I oppose this proposed ordinance to restrict the use of electronic message centers, by restricting andinstituting a curfew makes no sense to me. Electronic message centers are extremely valuable forbusinesses to advertise and the city should not interfere with keeping the signs on all night.
Electronic signs further contribute to the community by increasing a level of security and less
dangerous, particularly in the retail and entertainment areas of Salt Lake City.
The Electronic signs make the city more inviting for all.
Thank you,
Augusta RoseCredit AdministratorYESCO Financial Solutions
2401 Foothill DriveSalt Lake City, UT 84109
801-493-7370 PHONE
1-801-210-7906 FAX
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Austin Decker
To:Harris, Katilynn
Cc:jyoung@yesco.com; Austin Decker
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sign Code Curfew
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:26:01 PM
Katilynn,
I have been notified that Salt Lake City is proposing a restriction to digital signs.
We as an entity has spent a ton of money, as a smaller business, on our digital sign. I
personally have spent many hours working on our sign’s digital experience that it shows. It
forecasts things such as the time and our business hours as well as thanks our customers for
the great thing that they do for the entire country.
Being in the long haul heavy duty trucking industry we use our sign to advertise our business
driving sales tax to Salt Lake City as well as allowing our customers to know who we are.
I would like to vocalize our heavy opposition to this restriction on our digital sign as much more
than just a sign is actually sitting there. Gratitude flashes up, advertising flashes up, our
marketing flashes up along with anything we want. During the day customers can see all of this
by coming into our business.
This new proposal placing a curfew will ultimately waste our hard earned money that we spent
to put this sign up for the greater good of more than just advertising.
I hope this email finds you well and I surly hope Salt Lake City stands behind its businesses
that make this city what it has become today and vote against this curfew as you are restricting
the businesses of so many things.
“There is less to fear from outside competition than from inside inefficiency, discourtesy
and bad service!” -Author Unknown
Thank you,
Austin Decker
Assistant Parts Manager
Direct/Text: 801-214-3422
Parts Main: 801-214-3450
Email: austin@gdutahparts.com
Web: www.greatdaneutah.com
Great Dane Utah Parts Inc.
770 W. 2100 S. | Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to Proposed Salt Lake City Sign Code Changes
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9:30:39 AM
Ms. Harris:
I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed changes to the Salt Lake sign code. The
changes call for a hold time of 8 seconds on electronic message center signs and a curfew onelectronic signs from midnight to 6 AM.
I believe that signs are great drivers of economic activity. Businesses rely on them to bring
customers in. Restricting sign usage as proposed by these changes will be detrimental tobusinesses located within Salt Lake City. The city has designated certain areas as commercial
zones. Businesses located in these zones should be able to operate their signs unencumberedby these restrictions to maximize their effectiveness.
In addition to their advertising benefits, I believe electric signs also provide benefits by
providing light making the city more inviting & safer. They're an important part of a thrivingretail & entertainment scene. If the city hopes to draw consumers to it (especially downtown),
I believe electric signs will help accomplish that.
I would appreciate it if you would share my thoughts with the members of the City PlanningCommission.
Respectfully,
Clark Smith
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Mirci Dental
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Regarding Electronic Sign Changes
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:00:13 PM
To whom it may concern,
We have received notice that you are trying to change the display hours of the electronic
signs. I believe as a business owner I should be able to choose the animation and the
hours of operation as I see fit.
This is a major part of my business advertising and I should not be forced to turn off the
sign during the evening hours. Just because we are not in the office doesn't mean that
we don't have people driving by and seeing our sign. While I appreciate the concerns of
residents affected by the lighting, the area has been appropriately zoned for me to
conduct regular business. This policy would significantly hinder my ability to do so. This
policy change will negatively impact my business and I strongly discourage you from
pursuing such changes.
Feel free to contact me to discuss in further detail my concerns.
Dr. Daniel Mirci
801-487-3836
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to the sign code
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 12:21:05 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
> To: Chair Christensen & the SLC Planning Commission Committee
>>
>> I am writing in reference to a new sign code listing electronic sign restrictions.
>> I am not in favor of these restrictions. Here are my reasons:
>>
>> 1. Safety is a concern of mine, particularly in the SLC communities. I know young adults who drive at night
after taking late night classes &/or studying in libraries. Added safety measures by having well lit electronic
signage is necessary. I say this from personal experience having driven on too dark of roads.
>>
>> 2. Privately owned businesses need support with well lit electronic signage. Business owners use electronic
signs for advertisements which add to their customer base. It is worthwhile to keep businesses local.
>>
>> 3. Restricting the use of electronic signage living in this modern world isn’t common sense to me.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Deborah M. Haynie
>>
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 8 Second hold times on electronic signs (EMCs) Curfew - Midnight to 6 AM for electronic signs for
businesses that are not open
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:38:06 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to express my support for facilitating commercial activity withindesignated commercial zones in our community. It is essential to allow businesses to
thrive in areas specifically designated for commercial purposes.
Moreover, I firmly believe in the benefits of electronic signs for our local businesses.
These signs serve as valuable tools for advertising and promotion, helping
businesses attract customers and remain competitive in today's market.
However, I am concerned about the potential negative impact of imposing overly
restrictive regulations on businesses operating within these zones. Such restrictions
could hinder business growth and innovation, ultimately harming our local economy.
Therefore, I urge the Planning Commission to consider policies that support
commercial activity and electronic signs within commercial zones, while also ensuring
that any regulations implemented are fair and reasonable.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I appreciate your dedication to
fostering a vibrant and prosperous business environment in our community.
Sincerely,
Gordon Poulson
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Jake Wilkerson
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Planning Commission Meeting regarding message center displays
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 8:53:50 PM
Hi Kaitlynn,
I’m Jake Wilkerson, a former SLC resident and I currently work in SLC. I wanted to ask you
to consider my short story when writing codes that will affect small business, even largebusinesses in the area.
A few years ago just before the pandemic and through it I had a newborn son and there were
many complications. Our doctor and hospital bills were high, and overtime was scarce at thetime so I picked up a side gig doing gig economy deliveries. I delivered food for DoorDash.
This allowed my family to pay off our debts and get to enjoying our little family.
I worked odd hours while doing this and was out late at night. It was then that I saw an emcadvertising a promotion for Valentine’s Day at a local flower shop. I decided then I would
support a local store and shop there for flowers this year for the holiday, previously I had usedCostco and flowers.com.
The shop wasn’t open at the time as you can imagine, it was late at night and I was burning the
midnight oil to make ends meet. If this ad wasn’t shown by them at this time, I likely wouldn’thave given another thought to it and ordered from my phone as per usual.
If we take away advertising, including at night there will be a negative impact to the local
economy as there are people out who still benefit from these ads, even if it’s only to make aplan to return.
In my profession I have got to work one on one training customers how to use their signs, and
I know many who are excited about making theirs look cool or stand out. Many of these signsaren’t large enough to hold their entire message and require them to scroll or move around so
they can get their point across, they simply don’t have the real estate to advertise that abillboard has. For this reason I think it would be extremely limiting to them to instate an 8
second hold time. What would their message read? “Sale on fl…” perhaps. Not nearly aseffective as what they intended to say.
I ask that you consider allowing on premise signs to continue to advertise even at night. I like
EMC’s, they bring a renewed look to cities they come to and can be very beneficial bothesthetically and economically.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jake Wilkerson
Installation Supervisor
1605 S. Gramercy Rd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103
951-901-9778 CELL
#YESCO100YEARS
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Kathryn Young
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Planning Commission tonight
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 12:02:41 PM
It has come to my attention that there is a proposal to limit business message center signs. I
think the signs are great and have a purpose to inform about the businesses and motivateincreased business. The owners bought these signs with the intention to use them to share
information. In our neighborhood, a dentist office has an animated toothbrush to advertisetheir business. It could also be seen as a reminder to brush our teeth.
I also like images of waving American flags. For small message boards, an eight second hold would keep a person from seeing the end of
the message as they drive by. My question is why do we want to make things hard for smallbusinesses? Do we want to help business succeed or make it harder for them?
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) New Sign Code Opposition
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1:21:55 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express concerns about some of the proposed changes to sign code. Especiallyrestrictions concerning electronic signs in commercial zones. I believe the proposed changes
will negatively impact business and especially smaller businesses. I believe the 8 second holdtimes make sense in some context when it comes to safety. But, a broad restriction of 8
seconds to all sign types I feel is unnecessary and will hurt businesses. I believe that signage isan essential element of our city and communities. It is a key factor in drawing in customers. I
heavily rely on signage to learn about new businesses, special events, sales, openings, andother related activities. This especially makes a huge difference for businesses that don't have
the resources to have a strong digital presence. Electronic signs provide an opportunity forsmaller businesses to advertise in a shared space that is more affordable. This should be an
essential thing to consider as you work to limit all signs to an 8 second hold time.
Additionally, I have concerns about the electronic sign curfew. Once again, I feel this changeis too broad and shouldn't be applied to every sign type or city zone. This will once again hurt
business. By instating this regulation, you are taking away potentially vital time for businessesto reach their customers. Especially as our cities continue to expand and grow, increasing
number of people will be commuting to work before 6 am. I don't understand why we aretrying to cut down business in our cities? These changes aren't going to impact the Amazon,
Walmart, fortune 500 companies. Instead, it is going to be harming the smaller localizedbusinesses who are already facing increasing challenges to remain competitive against larger
corporations.
I firmly believe that with some cross table communication, we can come to a solution that canmeet the needs of everyone. I don't think you have arrived to such solution. I plead that you
take the time and effort to make revisions that will strongly take into consideration the benefitsof electronic signs for our businesses and communities. We all have the same goal to make our
cities and communities a better place.
Thank you for your consideration. Kimberly
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) SLC Planning Commission - Electronic Sign Discussion
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:21:31 AM
SLC Planning Committee,
I understand that the committee is working toward changing rules regarding the use of
electronic signs. I am OPPOSED to those changes.
Electronic signs help businesses do business.
Limiting their use and limiting the ways the signs are used goes against owner's rights.
Over the years small bands of people have complained about some of these signs. Much ofthe information about the signs and how they are used has been unfairly presented and
propagated.
My feeling is that most of the focus of these arguments are misplaced.
If the governing bodies want to work on things such as the brightness levels at night, that isgreat. That is reasonable and good for all. The few bad actors that cause this problem can be
trained, and worked with. Other than that, curfews, limits on animations, etc. are an overreachwhich limits business.
The restrictions being discussed are bad for business.
Best regards,
Tyler Steenblik
-- TLB
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Cc:
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sign Code update Opposition
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 7:50:53 AM
Katilynn,
I am writing to express concern and extreme opposition to the proposed new sign code.
Electronic signs are a branding standard that we personally use on a daily basis. Electronic signs not just help mybusiness but that of many others in our community. I personally like them and know many people that enjoy theflexibility that they offer to both the advertiser as well as the viewer. They provide needed messaging to supporteconomic growth in the City of Salt Lake.
Curfews on signage is very difficult especially when we are a business that is open 24 hrs. How are businesses likethese expected to keep offering services when their stores do not have lit signage. There will be certain types ofbusinesses, like gas stations where not having a lit sign would be against requirements mandated by weights andmeasures. Are these types of businesses going to have to revert to outdated, obsolete style signage? I also oppose the8 second hold times as this does not allow traffic passing by to view changeable messaging or even gas prices in aneffective manner. It creates scenarios in which not being able to view the entire message can create a safety issue.
When considering some of these changes to the sign code I would strongly ask that you consider the followingquestions...
Are you looking to reduce the local economy's tax contribution and have less money being brought into the City ofSalt Lake by local businesses?
Are you wanting to set local businesses up for success or for failure?
Is this new code encouraging new businesses to come to Salt Lake?
Is adding further restrictive rules and language to the sign code adding any value to the local economy?
Will these changes make Salt Lake City appear to be living in the dark ages and not up to date with the latesttechnology's that allow businesses to thrive?
These changes are unrealistic if you are wanting businesses to continue to thrive within the City of Salt Lake. Ifirmly support allowing businesses and commercial activity to be fully functional in the commercial zones that havebeen established specifically for these businesses. I support economic growth within the City of Salt Lake. Thisincludes letting these businesses and future businesses to come install and use the needed signage and advertisingtools. This is the type of signage that gives businesses the visibility that they need to succeed and thrive and we needto allow them to do just that, without further added limitations.
Restrictions like these are simple put, bad for business!
Thank you,
Austin Cope
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Braden Saunders
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) SLC Electronic Sign Code
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 9:58:25 AM
Hi Katilynn,
I'm writing to express my opposition to some parts of the proposed electronic sign code beingconsidered by Salt Lake City. Specifically, I don't agree with restricting the use of electronic
signs and mandating a curfew for their use. In my experience, new electronic signs typicallycome with auto-dimming features to ensure they aren't too bright. I believe that commercial
activity should be allowed to happen in commercial zones and the use of electronic signage inthose zones is appropriate. When done right, I think electronic signs are a good thing for
business and the community. I understand there is a balance that needs to be met, but in myhumble opinion, these points are unnecessary.
I appreciate your consideration and service to our community. I understand what you guys do
is kind of a thankless job and its tough to make everyone happy. Hope you have a great day.
Best,
Braden
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Harris, Katilynn
To:
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Salt Lake motion graphics sign ban
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:36:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your comments. They have shared with the Planning Commission. Just as an FYI, the proposed textamendment only affects the municipality of Salt Lake City so Sandy and Murray will not be impacted. Additionally, this isonly for on-premise signs so things like billboards along I-15 likewise will not be affected.
Thanks again,
KATILYNN HARRIS | (She/Her/Hers)
Principal Planner
PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Phone: (801) 535-6179
Email: katilynn.harris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV
From: Brian Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:22 AM
To: Harris, Katilynn <katilynn.harris@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Salt Lake motion graphics sign ban
Hey,
Apparently the Salt Lake area is considering a ban on motion graphics everywhere, and I don't
agree with that. I feel like that's a choice for individual areas and business owners. Limits on
animation might be sensible in smaller residential areas, but in busy commercial areas like the I-
15 corridor in Murray and Sandy, it will actively hurt those businesses' performance.
The same thing goes for operating hour limits. Again, this should be a choice for business owners
and their neighbors
-Thank you
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Brian Blank
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) On-Premise Signs
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 11:38:28 AM
Attachments:image001.png
I have two stores in the Salt Lake Valley that would be negatively effected by this proposal.
ExtraMile 1704 W. North Temple & 365 W. 2100 So.
We are not open 24 hours. However, our fuel dispensers are and displaying the fuel pricing and
the additional lighting helps with safety. These two stores are in High crime areas and North
Temple has a infux of homeless and vandalism as well as break ins. With the Police
department short staffed we are at our own mercy often. This becomes a huge safety concern,
and we are doing our part and this proposal will increase crime within the city and surrounding
areas.
Brian Blank | District 27 Manager
Jacksons Food Stores
3450 E Commercial Ct. |Meridian, Idaho 83642
C 1-385-335-3814
Jacksons.com
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Isaac Gallegos
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) *Oppose* "Salt Lake and the Band on Electronic Animations"
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:20:08 AM
Katilynn:
I hope this email finds you well. As a citizen of Salt Lake City for more than 19yrs., I have seen this city
change in both positive and negative ways. I want to oppose the ban on electronic animations!
In short: If we restrict the use of electronic signage it will have a negative impact to our business
especially our local businesses which SLC takes pride in.
What would it mean and look like if the Olympics selected UT to have this restriction in place? We want
everything in our favor during this pressing time and especially for our local businesses.
There have been many studies conducted that associate when places are well lit, it drives out crime and
creates a sense of Safety and Security. Anything we can do to prevent crime in our City is a great thing.
Nearly every Police and Sheriff departments would agree.
V/r,
Isaac GallegosSafety Manager
1605 South Gramercy Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
(801) 464.6408, Ext.1408 (O)(806) 441.7667 (C)
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 9:32:36 AM
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed sign ordinance amendment
currently under consideration. I believe this amendment would severely restrict the use ofelectronic signs in our community, which I do not support.
Firstly, I oppose the imposition of a curfew on the use of electronic signs. Such restrictions
would unnecessarily limit businesses' ability to effectively advertise their products andservices, particularly during crucial hours.
Additionally, I disagree with the proposal to mandate an 8-second hold time for electronic
signs. This requirement would hinder businesses' creativity and flexibility in communicatingwith their target audience, potentially limiting the effectiveness of their advertising efforts.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that commercial activity should be allowed to flourish in
designated commercial zones. Restricting the use of electronic signs in these areas would becounterproductive and could stifle economic growth.
Electronic signs play a vital role in promoting local businesses and enhancing the vibrancy of
our community. They provide businesses with a dynamic and engaging platform to attractcustomers and communicate important information.
Implementing such restrictive measures as outlined in the proposed amendment would
undoubtedly have adverse effects on our local businesses. These restrictions are not onlyunnecessary but also detrimental to the economic well-being of our community.
In conclusion, I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider the proposed sign ordinance
amendment and to take into account the concerns of local businesses and communitymembers. Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter.
Sincerely,
Joel Warden
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Ken Wilson
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sign restrictions
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:40:47 AM
I oppose the curfew on electronic signs. I think a business should be able to advertise as much
as they would like. Plus the lighting at night helps light up parts of the city to keep them safer.I believe businesses should be able to control their signs as they would like.
Thank you
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Lynda Edenfield
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Electric sign curfew is bad for business
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 12:13:50 PM
I do not agree with ordering a curfew that imposes a regulation for Utah business owners to
use their electric signs. Business owners should not be restricted from utilizing their
business assets. I would never want to drive into a dark city. Advertising is used to createawareness and allows our local business to promote their products and services. I opposethe new sign code.
Respectfully,
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:
To:kaitlynn.harris@slcgov.com; Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023 - 00669 Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 2:58:56 PM
Attachments:SLC Electronic Sign Text Amendment Comments - Matt Phillips - 03272024.pdf
SLC Planning Commission,
Please review and consider the attached letter as it relates to PLNPCM2023-00669, ElectronicSigns Text Amendment being discussed this evening at the planning commission meeting.
Thank you,
--
Matt Phillips
March 27, 2024 sent via email March 27, 2024
Chair Mike Christensen and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Nick Norris, Planning Director
Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner
Re: PLNPCM2023-00669, Electronic Signs Text Amendment
Honorable Chair Christensen and the SLC Planning Commission:
I am contacting you as a concerned citizen and business owner regarding some of the proposed
changes to the Electronic Signs Text Amendment. There are several of the proposed changes
that make sense and are aligned with the goals of the city, such as the proposal limitation on
brightness.
The areas that I would request that the Planning Commission refer back to staff to resolve with
key stakeholders include:
1. Wording around the requirement of a static image and an 8 second hold time should be
applied on a neighborhood by neighborhood or district by district basis depending on
the mix of residential, commercial, and manufacturing establishments in the area. A
blanket application of these requirements will punish some businesses unnecessarily.
2. Wording around the curfew of illumination between midnight and 6 AM creates a
situation where potentially lifesaving information tied to the Integrated Public Alert &
Warning System would not be available during these hours. This emergency warning
system relies on these electronic signs to be functioning and it is in the public interest
to have them available at all hours.
In conclusion, these existing signs and future signs are a benefit to many businesses in this
jurisdiction. Limiting their use and functionality is not in line with one of the guiding principles
of the Salt Lake Plan. Specifically, these changes will not add to…, “A balanced economy that
produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to
thrive.”
I would hope the committee would consider these impacts and refer these comments back to
staff to review, discuss and improve in collaboration with stakeholders.
Thank you for taking the time to review and consider my position.
Sincerely,
Matt Phillips
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Advertising = Free Enterprise = Jobs = City Tax Revenue
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:10:39 AM
Katilynn:
Please add this email to the public input opposing the proposed sign code changes.
I am a business owner in Salt Lake City.
Commercial zones must provide businesses the ability to compete.
The proposed limitations on signage and electronic message centers are damaging. Effective advertising for a business is essential for success.
Successful businesses attract customers More people are employed.
Tax revenues increase.Cities thrive.
Thank you.
Mike Young
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Mitchell Stapley
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to Proposed Sign Code Changes
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:11:23 AM
Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed sign code changes outlined in Case
Number PLNPCM2023-00669. As a resident of Salt Lake City, I believe these restrictions on
electronic signs are unnecessary and will have negative consequences for our community.
Let me start by stating that commercial zones should be allowed to thrive with the tools necessaryfor successful marketing and promotion. Electronic signs play a vital role in modern advertisingstrategies, and imposing such stringent regulations will only hinder the growth and competitivenessof businesses operating within these areas.
I would also like to express my disapproval of the curfew imposed on the use of electronic signs.
Restricting their illumination between the hours of midnight and 6:00 A.M. is arbitrary and
unjustified. Electronic signs can serve as important tools for communication and advertising,
especially during late-night hours when traditional signage may be less effective.
Additionally, mandating an 8-second hold time for the display of text, images, or graphics onelectronic message centers is overly restrictive. This limitation stifles creativity and hampers theeffectiveness of these signs as dynamic advertising mediums. Businesses should have the flexibilityto tailor their messaging to suit their needs and engage with their target audience effectively.
I personally appreciate the presence of electronic signs in our city, as they contribute to the vibrancy
of our local business landscape and help businesses reach their target audiences in a dynamic and
engaging manner. Implementing these restrictions would not only limit their effectiveness but also
place unnecessary burdens on businesses already facing numerous challenges.
In conclusion, I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider the proposed sign code changes andinstead focus on promoting a business-friendly environment that fosters innovation and economicgrowth. Thank you for considering my concerns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------Mitchell E StapleyGRAPHIC DESIGNER-----------------------------------------------------------------Young Electric Sign Company
1605 S. Gramercy Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
-----------------------------------------------------------------CELL PHONE: 385.219.1374 DESK PHONE: 801.464.6431 EXT: 1431
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) opposition to Ban on Electronic Animations
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:38:02 AM
Good morning, I would like to personally and strongly oppose to the
proposed banning restrictions on electronic signs that are currently
pending.
I believe the ban proposals that have been presented are not good for
our local business communities and I strongly believe the
restrictions will cause more damage than good. The restrictions will
have a negative impact on local businesses that will make it difficult
for them to thrive.
I ask that you please reconsider passing these ban restrictions.
Thank you!
Norma Petersen
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public comment RE: PLNPCM2023-00669 (Electronic Message Centers Text Amendments)
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:52:47 AM
Ms. Harris:
I am a resident of Salt Lake City. I reside at and have lived at this address since
2016, I have been involved in the sign and lighting industry since 1984, and am a member ofthe Illuminating Engineering Society Outdoor Nighttime Environments Committee. In
addition, I am also a member of the International Sign Association Digital Committee and theOutdoor Advertising Association of America Digital Committee. Despite my history in the
sign industry, I can assure you, as a resident of the city, it is not my aim to "turn Salt LakeCity into downtown Las Vegas".
I do have several comments that I will corelate with a reference to the relevant proposed text:
21A.46.070.W Item 1. This type of restriction is commonly associated with off-premise
advertising. Why are local business being restricted in this way for on-premise advertising?What problem does this solve? The Federal Highway Administration has conducted several
studies that have failed to link any of the display modes indicated in the proposed text withhighway safety problems. Have there been specific local complaints? If so, has any effort been
made to work out a less restrictive solution with the input of the subject business(es) and/orthe numerous long-standing providers of this equipment in Salt Lake City? From the
perspective of the local small business owner, this appears to be an unnecessarily hostilesolution that is searching for a problem.
21A.46.070.W Item 2. Same as above.
21A.46.070.W Item 3. There are MANY electronic message centers operating in Salt Lake
City in areas where the ambient light level would meet or exceed this measurement with nocontribution from the EMC. How is the EMC to be measured in such a case? Is the intent of
this provision that the EMC shall not be brighter than 0.3 Footcandles above the ambientlighting level at the specified distance? That would make more sense and would make the
provision easier to enforce. Has any field testing been done to validate the efficacy of thisprovision? If not, I have the equipment to assist in this effort, and would be willing to do so. A
version of the "0.3 footcandles above ambient lighting" recommendation was the result of anextensive light trespass study by Dr. Ian Lewin of Lighting Sciences in Scottsdale, AZ, and
has been incorporated into the sign ordinances of hundreds of municipalities nationwide, andmany state DOTs.
21A.46.070.W Item 5. While this provision would make sense in any area immediately
adjacent to a residential area, these types of signs may be elevating the ambient light level in away that would promote safety in other areas of the city. Has this been considered?
I think it would be reasonable to reconsider these provisions, and conduct on-site testing to
verify both that the problem(s) that precipitated the proposed changes are adequatelyaddressed, and that the business(es) affected by the change are not unduly harmed. I offer my
assistance and the measuring equipment at my disposal for this purpose without cost to thecity if such an effort is undertaken.
Best personal regards,
Rod Wardle
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Shayne Durrant
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) sign ordinance
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 9:03:53 AM
Dear planning commission,
I appreciate all of the hard work you do. I know it can be a thankless job with many
challenges. I have served on planning commissions and as a Washington County planner.The sign ordinance you are looking at will have lasting effects on the business that supports,
sustains and enriches our communities. We need to support our business friends and partners. Please do not place burdensome restrictions on electronic signage in commercial zones. These
messages and the people who pay for them are a vital part of our economic health. Placingcurfews and hold times serve no real purpose other than harming the businesses who support
our community.Thanks for your time and consideration.
--
Shayne DurrantSenior Marketing Consultant
1605 S. Gramercy Rd
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
801.441.7603 Office
801.851.0623 Direct/Cell801.467.3447 Fax
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose New Sign Code
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:45:22 AM
To Whom it May Concern.
I am writing in regards to the proposed new sign code and would like to make it known that I
strongly oppose it. Implementing a curfew on electronic signs inhibits the ability of businessesto maximize the benefits of electric signs. Which will result in loss revenue, that will then
negatively affect the opportunity for revenue, that would be passed on to employees andresidents of the state. In addition to a curfew on electric signs, the ban on animation creates
"red tape" for businesses in their unique ability to attract customers. Animation allows forcreativity!! Creativity allows for innovations and growth.
Implementing a ban on Electric Signs and Animation is bad for business. It is bad for
employers and employees. It is bad for the community. I strongly oppose the ban.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Spring Black
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:stpatoffice@comcast.net
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Stop sign code
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 12:06:30 PM
I oppose this new sign code that restricts the use of electronic signs
I don't agree in issuing a curfew for their use
I oppose in mandating 8 second hold times
Let commercial activity happen in commercial zones
I like electronic signs and they help our local businesses
These restrictions are bad for business
Parish SecretarySt. Patrick Catholic Church
Phone: 801-596-7233Fax: 801-577-2383
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:Tony Rasmussen
To:Zoning
Cc:Sterling Nielsen
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Electronic Message Centers (EMC) Text Amendments - Petition Number PLNPCM2023-00669
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:22:51 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngMACU Text Amendment Response.pdf
Chairman Christensen, Planning Commission members and Kaitlynn Harris, Principal Planner:
Please see the attached letter from CEO Sterling Nielsen at Mountain America Credit Union
regarding Electronic Message Centers (EMC) Text Amendments (Petition Number PLNPCM2023-
00669), sent to be considered in this evening’s (March 27, 2024) meeting.
Sincerely,
Tony
Tony Rasmussen Executive Assistant to the CEO, Executive Team
+1 801-325-6430 |trasmussen@macu.com
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Planning Commission Concerns
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 9:46:19 AM
Katilynn,
I have recently taken steps to be more involved with state and local issues that affect my
livelihood as a Utahan. It has come to my attention that the planning commission is trying torestrict electronic message center usage in commercial areas. Commercial zoning served a
great purpose in providing consumers with goods and services. Electronic message centers areone of the most effective ways to advertise. Electronic boards enable advertisers to be more
creative and create messages that can only be done on electronic boards to attract consumersto their businesses. Animated messages have been proven to be positive ways to get ads across
to the consumer. The proposed changes will affect business in commercial areas. I stronglyoppose the following issues that are up for consideration by the planning commission: curfew
on electronic boards and mandating 8-second hold times on message boards.
I hope my voice is heard and that the proposed restrictions will be voted down.
Warm regards,
Steve Burt
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:stpatoffice@comcast.net
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Stop this today please
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 12:19:58 PM
I oppose the new sign code that restricts the usage of electronic science. We are here
at our church; we need our sign. To let people know where our masses are and
certain things that are happening at the church.
I do not agree in issuing A curfew for the usage of our machine. It goes day and
night; we've never had any complaints and it's very necessary for our church.
I oppose. In mandate 8 second whole times. I usually use around 5 seconds. Not 8.
Please let commercial activity happen in commercial zones.I like electronic signs and they help our local church to let everyone. In the area in the
form of our masses and things happening here at the church.
These restrictions are very bad for our business. We need our sign to relay things to
the community. Please stop this today.Susie Lindsley Parish Secretary
St. Patrick Catholic ChurchPhone: 801-596-7233
Fax: 801-577-2383
From:Vincent G Coley
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) EMC changes
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 2:26:41 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Katilynn,
My Name is Vince Coley owner of Rainbow Neon Sign Co. I would urge you
to reevaluate the "On Premise" regulations you have proposed for EMC's
it is very restrictive to business owners it will devalue the customers
asset by one third based solely on Dark time and the 8 second hold in a
one block scenario will easily Half the remaining value of their asset.
it's hard enough as a business owner these days to find customers and
make a living
thanks for you time
Vince Coley
--
Vince Coley
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or openingattachments.
From:
To:Harris, Katilynn
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed New Sign Code in Salt Lake City
Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 11:19:03 AM
Greetings,
I oppose the proposed changes to the sign code for electronic signs in Salt Lake
City. I'm concerned that our capital city is becoming business unfriendly like other
formerly great cities such as San Francisco and Seattle. When cities become
unfriendly to business, businesses leave for other places where the Government
isn't viewed as their enemy but rather a partner in their success. As we learned fromSeattle, businesses are more able to pack up and leave than policy makers thought
they were.
The proposed restrictions on electronic signs, curfews and 8 second hold times are
step backwards rather than looking toward the future.Thank you,
Warren Strong
This page has intentionally been left blank