CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM

Department:	Planning & Development Services		Commission Meeting Date:  8-15-2017
Staff Contact:	Kurt Schroeder, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services, Development Services Barry Walthall, Building Official
Recommendations/Options/Action Requested:
Consider proposed Sign Code regulations and adopt on first reading Ordinance No. 9391 to delete and replace current regulations, as set forth in City of Lawrence Code Chapter V, Article 18, if appropriate.
Executive Summary:		In May 2016, the City Commission authorized staff to review the City’s Sign Code with key stakeholders, focusing on several priority issues that could benefit the business community and the City.  However, soon after discussions with stakeholder groups were initiated during the summer of 2016, it became evident that a landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding day-to-day regulation of signs, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ (Reed v. Gilbert), and subsequent related court rulings, compelled Staff to completely rewrite the Sign Code.  During the fall of 2016, draft regulations for a new Sign Code were prepared by Planning & Development Services staff with assistance from the City Attorney’s Office, and subsequently reviewed over many months with the City Attorney’s Office, Chamber of Commerce representatives and other stakeholder groups, including licensed City of Lawrence sign contractors, the Lawrence Board of Realtors, local farmer’s market operators/representatives, the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods and various other persons who had expressed an interest in sign regulation.  Input received from stakeholders was considered, and many stakeholder suggestions are incorporated in the proposed sign regulations.  On June 1, 2017, the proposed new Sign Code regulations were presented to the City’s Sign Code Board of Appeals (SCBA) for review and a recommendation to the City Commission.  The SCBA voted 6-0-1 (one recusal) to recommend that the City Commission adopt the Sign Code regulations as presented to the SCBA.  Because of Reed v. Gilbert, the proposed Sign Code regulates permanent and temporary signs in a content-neutral manner, with regulations distinguished not by business, service, product, issue or ideology (content-based), but by zoning districts, land use “character” districts (such as “historic districts”), zoning land use classifications or special lot conditions.  The proposed Sign Code does not refer to or regulate signs based on a sign’s message, such as real estate, political, gas and fuel sales pricing, development, area marker or time and temperature (except for a few content-based sign types noted in Reed v. Gilbert, including  governmental, traffic control and off-premise signs).  Drafting a new City Sign Code to assure content-neutral sign regulation was particularly challenging for temporary signs, many of which are presently regulated as to maximum size, number, height and display time based on message content (like most local sign codes in the United States). The proposed Sign Code helps assure city sign regulations comply with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to the content neutrality principles articulated in the Reed v. Gilbert, AZ U.S. Supreme Court decision. The proposed Sign Code also addresses code items identified prior to May 2016 by the Chamber of Commerce and City staff as priorities for review and possible amendment. The attached Significant Changes between Proposed Sign Code and Current Sign Code document provides detail on significant proposed Sign Code changes. The most notable regulatory changes in the proposed Sign Code include: 1. Changeable Electronic Message Center Signs (EMCs) are allowed for land uses in office, hospital, commercial and industrial zoning districts, and for certain non-residential land uses in other zoning districts (with additional permit application requirements, and significant limitations and operating restrictions).  EMCs are not allowed in the Downtown Commercial or Inner Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts. 2. Temporary sign regulations provide greater flexibility to businesses by increasing maximum display time per calendar year from 30 to 45 days, which can be divided into multiple shorter periods during the year (e.g., three separate 15-day periods).  Multiple temporary signs can be permitted for display at the same time (with maximum total number, area, height and separation restrictions).  In commercial and industrial zoning districts, one “feather” sign can be temporarily displayed on each street frontage.  The current Sign Code allows only one maximum 30-day permit for a single sign per calendar year, and prohibits “feather” signs.  In commercial and industrial zoning districts, temporary sign permits are required, unless exempt from permit under certain conditions as noted in Items 4, 5 and 6 below. 3. Temporary signs in the least intense zoning districts (residential, residential office, etc.) are regulated as to maximum number allowed per lot, maximum area (per individual sign and total sign area) and maximum height; however, temporary sign permits are not required.    4. Because signs cannot be regulated by message content, “political signs” are no longer referenced.  Instead, regulations provide exemptions from temporary sign permits and maximum number of temporary signs placed on a lot for 50 days prior to and 10 days after the date of a political election, referendum or ballot measure, provided signs meet maximum size and height requirements. 5. Like “political signs”, “real estate signs” are also no longer referenced.  Instead, regulations provide exemptions from temporary sign permits for temporary signs placed on a lot where the property or a portion thereof is for sale, lease or rent, provided signs meet other requirements as to maximum number of signs, area and height for the lot. 6. In accordance with Reed v. Gilbert, flags should be addressed in sign regulations.  The proposed Sign Code defines government flags, corporate flags and decorative flags.  Government flags are exempt from permitting and basically unregulated.  One (1) corporate flag up to 24 square feet in area is allowed on a lot without a permit, provided it is attached to a flagpole and is not located in a minimum building setback.  Up to three (3) decorative flags (no advertising or logos) attached to flag poles or light poles, and not exceeding 24 square feet in area each, are allowed on a lot without a permit. 7. Per direction from the City Attorney’s Office, the proposed Sign Code specifically prohibits signs on public right-of-way, except for governmental signs as defined in the proposed Sign Code.  All other signs must be located on private property with permission of the property owner, and as otherwise allowed by the Sign Code.  Signs that are currently approved as “signs of community interest” to promote a specific event or organization are accommodated by the proposed Sign Code, but only when signs are properly located on private property with an owner’s permission. 8. Works of art are defined, but the review and approval process is no longer initiated with a sign permit application.  Applications for works of art will instead be submitted to and reviewed by the Cultural Arts Commission.  If any portion of a work of art contains commercial advertising, that portion must be permitted separately as a sign under the Sign Code. 9. Existing nonconforming signs, such as pole signs and off-site billboards, must be made to conform to currently adopted code standards if they: (1) are to be altered in a significant way; (2) are to be rebuilt, even at the same location; (3) are located on a lot being redeveloped and determined to be a Major Development Project requiring site plan approval per the Land Development Code; or (4) are deemed to be abandoned (see Item 10 below).  The current Sign Code allows nonconforming signs to be structural altered or rebuilt at their same location.  However, most major redevelopment projects approved by a site plan review under the Land Development Code currently require replacement of nonconforming signs with conforming signs. 10. A definition of “abandoned sign” has been added, and rules for abatement of and/or potential fines for illegal, unsafe or abandoned signs are clarified and expanded.  In the proposed code, a sign may be deemed abandoned if it remains on a building or property that has been vacant and unoccupied for a period of one (1) year or more, at which time it can be ordered to be removed, and ultimately abated by the City (per City Commission resolution), if necessary. Staff and the City of Lawrence Sign Code Board of Appeals recommend that Ordinance No. 9391 adopting a new Sign Code be approved on first reading.
Strategic Plan Critical Success Factor		Collaborative Solutions, Economic Growth and Security
Fiscal Impact (Amount/Source):		The fiscal impact to the City is $0.
Attachments:		Ordinance No. 9391 Significant Changes between Proposed Sign Code and Current Sign Code

Reviewed By: (for CMO use only)

☐TM ☒DS ☐CT ☐BM