Memo
To: PRCR Advisory Board; Greenway Committee
From: Mary Henderson, Director
Date: August 2, 2007
Re: PRCR Comprehensive Sign Plan – July 7, 2007 Joint Meeting Review Comments
This memo covers the discussion of the final signage concepts for the Parks and Greenway System in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resource Department. The comments and issues discussed below were from meetings with staff members and as well as at the July 9, 2007 Joint PRCR Advisory Board/Greenway Committee Meeting.
The overall signage package, which reflected feedback that had been provided to the design team throughout the planning process, was well received by all. Specific comments and discussion topics are noted below:
1. General issue related to the greenway identification signage. A point was raised that the naming of the individual greenway segments might be too subtle. While the current proposed naming was perceived as being good, a committee member felt that more prominent signage might be needed.
Response: It was recommended by the design team that the proposed signage elements be installed at several different sections of the greenway system and be evaluated to determine if they are adequate or if additional signage should be added. At this time, the entrance to the greenways will not include additional greenway identification signs similar to the proposed park entrance signs, or facility identification signs, with the exception of the Maynard Road Trail head, and future trail heads, that are separate facilities and not located within a park. However, as the plan is implemented on prioritized greenways, this will be evaluated, and changes can be made as needed to utilize one of the existing sign types for this purpose. Signage at entrances to greenways would include any of the following (Please note new sign ID names):
· ID-4 would be placed at the entry of a trailhead parking area that is not a part of a park. Currently, this one location is at the Black Creek Trailhead parking area on Maynard Road.
· ID-6 would be placed at the intersection of a greenway with a thoroughfare.
· ID-7 would be placed at the intersection of the street and a park entry where there is also greenway trail head. Examples of locations would include Bond Park entrance, Godbold Park entrance, and Ritter Park entrance.
· WAY-5 would be placed at the intersection of a greenway with a neighborhood road or at an intersection w/ other greenways.
· Entrances to Parks from Greenways (Ex: Access to North Cary Park from Black Creek Greenway) – To be determined. Either ID-5 or REG-2 could be utilized.
· Kiosks - In addition, kiosks will be placed at designated trailheads at the beginning of major greenways that will include names of trails and trail maps.
2. Mile marker bollards and placement of mile marker. A point was raised concerning adding the name of the trail on the mile marker bollards and placing the mile marker on both sides of the bollard. It was also suggested that the color contrast of the numbering of the mileage be bolder to promote quick recognition of the mileage. It was also suggested that mile marker bollards be installed at .25 mile intervals and that all bollards be the small size even at individual mile points.
Response: It was agreed that the addition of mileage markings on two sides of the mileage bollard was a good idea and that by changing the mileage lettering to yellow, it would increase the contrast with the background color. On the face of the bollard parallel with the trail the name of the individual greenway segment will be added and the word greenway removed. The interval of mile markers (.25 mile versus .5 mile) will be decided in the near future, in conjunction w/ input from the Greenway Committee, Fire Dept., EMS Services, etc. (GPS coordinates may be added as requested by the Fire Department.)
3. Text orientation on Greenway icons. A member of the committee expressed a concern over the orientation of the lettering on the greenway icon. It was noted that while book bindings run in the opposite direction this is not true for signage.
Response: No change needed. This was an issue raised at a previous meeting, and the design team had reviewed industry standards for signage and could not find a definitive direction as in publishing. It was felt the current orientation worked well and would remain.
4. Kiosk roof Materials. A member of the committee asked if a definite material had been selected for the translucent roofing on the kiosk and was concerned that if it was too transparent it would show debris collecting on the roof and be hard to keep clean.
Response: Planning team responded that no material had been selected at this time but the concern would be factored into the selection of the material. More research on the material will be done during the detailing of the kiosk, and we will look for a polycarbonate material in a blue range that will reduce the impact of dirt and other debris that will build up on the roof.
5. Specifications. Will the sign standards manual include sufficient written notes and or specifications to ensure that different manufactures can build the signs?
Response: Yes, sufficient notes and specifications will be included in the manual to control the quality of the sign manufacturing process. In addition the planning team recommended to staff that sign manufactures be pre-qualified prior to bidding on signs. It is important to make sure that the shops that are pre-qualified have the necessary equipment and manufacturing equipment to ensure quality sign fabrication and installation.
6. Sign Durability. How durable will be the metal sings?
Response: The proposed signs will be very durable and should withstand most impacts.
7. Arrows on signs. A committee member posed a question on the directional arrows on the wayfinding signs. The question posed was on the position of the arrows with respect to the direction you would turn. Should the arrows for right turns be on right side of sign and left turns on left side of sign?
Response: The standard practice for traffic signs is to place all arrows on the same side of the sign. This standard practice will be followed.
8. Hemlock Bluffs Entrance Sign. A member of the Board asked about the type of entrance sign that would be placed at a facility like Hemlock Bluffs.
Response: The planning team agreed that site specific issues would need to be worked out on a site-by-site basis during implementation. At this point, the designated entrance sign for Hemlock Bluffs would be ID-1. Staff will consider incorporating the Hemlock Bluffs logo into the entrance sign as is shown in the examples of ID-2 and 3. This will be further reinforced with a specially designed signature entrance gate at Hemlock Bluffs that is planned. In terms of internal signage, all special use facilities, particularly the “venue” facilities like the Tennis Park,
9. Site Furnishings. There was a question regarding the need standard benches and trash barrels in relation to the new Sign Plan.
Response: Staff will develop standards for benches, trash barrels, etc. that follow or reflect the general color scheme for the signs. While this will not specifically be addressed within the sign plan, it will be considered as new furnishings are added or replacements are needed.
10. Slogan “Explore Your Own Backyard”. A Board Member asked specifically about the use of this slogan and whether it could be incorporated with the greenway signs.
Response: This slogan appears on a number of the older greenway signs. Although a slogan will not be included as a part of the sign plan, a slogan could be added as text at kiosks or other locations and considered at the time of implementation.
11. Wayfinding post signs (WAY-4). A staff member suggested that we not limit the way finding post signs that will be added to electrical poles and existing bicycle route signs to greenways only—that parks be identified as well.
Response: This was felt to be a good suggestion and will be so noted in the design manual.
12. A single unified sign system. It was suggested by staff and agreed to by the committees that the sign package was now to the point that it could become a single system and did not need to be numbered as a separate greenway and parks sign system. This would reduce the duplication of signs in the design manual.
Response: The sign system has been reorganized and all duplicate signs eliminated. In the sign manual samples of use for greenway text and park text will both be provided.
13. Signs that are outside the design ordinance. A committee member asked how many of the signs were outside of the current Town of Cary Signage Standards even though the parks signs are exempt from the regulations. The reason for the request was so the Parks Advisory Committee would know when they vote on the sign package which signs might not be built.
Response: The exact language within the ordinance regarding exemption from the Town’s sign ordinance includes “Signs erected on behalf of a governmental or quasi-governmental agency, including but not limited to governmental offices and transit stations, for the purpose of site identification, to identify public property, convey public information and to direct or regulate pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Despite this, based on current interpretations of the sign standards, the two entry signs with electronic reader boards (ID2,3 and the Greenway Icon (ID-6) and banner signs (ID-7) would be considered non-conforming. It is felt that these signs while outside the standards are critically important to the overall branding and identification of public facilities and should be approved as part of the overall package.
13. Implementation. Board members requested additional information regarding how staff would implement the Sign Plan once approved.
Response: A formal implementation plan will be developed once the plan is approved. This will include a priority plan regarding which facilities to initially sign. There are currently several existing greenway projects that include capital funding that will be considered initially to incorporate the new signs. These include Speight Branch, Black Creek, White Oak Creek, Pirate’s Cove and the new extension of Hinshaw Greenway (as part of the US 1/64 Greenway project).
Existing capital park projects include Walnut Street Park and Middle Creek, Ph II.