STAFF REPORT

STAFF REPORT
Town Council, February 24, 2005
Planning and Zoning Board, March 21, 2005

Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 4) (PL05-021b)
Consideration of a series of modifications and revisions to the Land Development Ordinance related to procedures, allowable uses, and dimensional aspects

Speaker: Angela Reincke

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by: Angela Reincke, ASLA, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

BACKGROUND:

Staff has prepared amendments to various portions of the Land Development Ordinance at the request of Council members. The text to be included in Round 4 of LDO amendments include changes to the sign ordinance in relation to flags and signage on vehicles; and to the table for permitted uses in the Town Center District. These amendments include three options regarding signage on vehicles. Staff recommends option three which creates a new definition for signage on vehicles and provides clarification of existing regulations. The regulations require parking of vehicles in designated spaces and not in a location on the site which would increase the amount of allowable signage. Staff supports this option because it does not overly restrict the business owner, while the restraints would minimize proliferation of signage and it could be easily enforced.

At the public hearing comments focused on concerns about the amendments to signage on vehicles. These comments addressed concerns about vandalism to vehicles which were parked on the side or rear of businesses and the impact to economic development when this potential advertising option was restricted. There was also comment to the fact that identifying the classification of a personal or business vehicle would be confusing and difficult to regulate.

Staff has done additional research and found that many of our adjacent and similar size communities ( Durham , Raleigh, Charlotte, Garner, Apex, Greensboro ) throughout the state use regulations to limit or prohibit vehicle and portable signage. Staff also supports that since this restriction has been in place since 1982, and there has been substantial economic development in the ensuing years, that this regulation is not over burdensome or restrictive. Town Center properties are often smaller in size than newer developments and have many constraints due to their size. As Town Center properties develop, they are approved as meeting the intent of the ordinance when it would be impossible for them to meet the actual standards. Applying the prohibited signage regulation on a Town Center site would require evaluating the secure locations for parking and looking at the where vehicles were being parked. Sites which are reviewed by staff for approval are designed to accommodate a location for service vehicles and in fact lighting for security purposes is a part of the review. Vehicular Use areas are required to provide a minimum light level of no less than 0.2 footcandles. Sites which do not have a side or rear area appropriate for the parking of these vehicles would not be in violation because staff would be able to identify the limitations of the site. As stated in our public hearing presentation, in the last 3 years there have been 8 violations. Seven of these cases were quickly resolved by the business being educated and moving the vehicle to an appropriate location. Staff supports the regulation as it is currently written but has drafted the proposed amendments to provide more detail and clarification to help the business owners understand. The enforcement of this regulation has been and would continue to be on a site by site basis.

A summary table of the proposed text amendments is presented below. The table includes the relevant LDO section being modified as well as the purpose for the proposed amendment.

After evaluating the proposed amendments, staff supports all of the amendments.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with option three and forwarding to the April 14, 2005 Town Council meeting.

Proposed Round 3 Summary

Item #	Amendment Description	LDO Section	Purpose for Amendment
1	Table 5.1-2:Table of Town Center (TC) District Uses	5.1.3	Remove reference to “child” Care Center and replace with “day” care to reflect previous changes to LDO.
2	Flag and Flagpole Currently only one flag per pole is permitted. Proposed language would allow two per pole.	9.3.(H)	This amendment would allow a POW/MIA flag to be flown along with another flag on a single flagpole.
3	Prohibited Signs and Devices-Signs on Vehicles Proposed language would define signage on vehicles and clarify where those vehicles may or may not be parked.	9.4	This amendment would allow personal vehicles with signs to be parked in front of the associated business. This would not allow commercial vehicles with applied signage to be parked in lots to attract attention or promote businesses.
5	OTHER KEY TERMS DEFINED	12.4	Define new sign types

SECTION 5.1.3 Amendments Proposed by Staff

Analysis

In Round 2 LDO Amendments, “Child” care center uses were reclassified as “Day” care centers
to provided regulations which covered both children and adult care centers. The changes made
were not reflected in the Town Center and this amendment will make it consistent.

TABLE 5.1-2: TABLE OF TOWN CENTER (TC) DISTRICT USES
P = Permitted Use; S = Special Use (see Section 3.8); A = Accessory Use
Use Category	Use Type	H M X D	M X D	H D R Mid-Rise	M X D R	HDR Garden	MDR	LDR	CB&R	COM	CLI	OFC-INS	INS	OFC-IND	Use-Specific Stds
Day Care	~~Child~~ Dday care center	S	S	S	S	S	S	S		P	P	P		P	5.2.2(B)
	Day care home, large	S	S	S	S	S	S	S						P	5.2.2(B)
	Day care home, small	P	P	P	P	P	P	P						P	5.2.2(B)

Flags of non-commercial message have been allowed on all sites under the current regulations. Flags with commercial messages are not permitted on residential lots. The current regulations allow three flagpoles with one flag per pole. Recognizing that some flags are flown together in prescribed relations and location staff has prepared an amendment allowing 2 flags per pole. For example, this amendment would allow the POW/MIA flag to be flown in combination, directly below, the American Flag. Staff’s proposal would allow a total of six flags for a single site or lot.

In a non-residential or multi-family residential site not showing flags on an approved site plan, there shall be no more than three flagpoles and ~~one~~ two flags per pole. Poles for such flags shall be located on the principal building wall on the site or within 20 feet of the main building entrance.

Flags may be included on a site plan and located as shown on that site plan, provided that:

(a) Flagpoles shall be limited to three per principal building or multifamily residential complex;

(c) Flagpoles shall be ~~not less than~~ a minimum of 50 feet from a public or private street of right-of-way.

There shall not be more than three flagpoles and ~~one~~two flags per pole on any single-family residential lot. No ~~sign~~flag on such a lot may bear a commercial message.

Signs on vehicles are classified as portable signs and have been included in the prohibited signs and devices list since the adoption of the Land Development Ordinance in May 2003. Staff has seen two typical forms of this type of signage. This first is a vehicle owned by the business that is used in daily business operations. An example of this type of vehicle would be a delivery truck, catering truck, childcare bus/van etc. With developing technology staff has seen a trend of commercial messages being placed on personal vehicles. The second type is typically located on vehicles owned by the business owner and used for personal and business purposes. The vehicles, from automobiles to large trucks, are often completely covered in images. Staff typically receives complaints related to these vehicles being parked on residential properties. Often they are parked in association with Home Occupations (Accessory Uses) and we have mechanisms in place to regulate these. The type of vehicle and its intended use are where the biggest compliance efforts are focused. In an effort to address compliance issues that are most relevant and enforceable, staff has prepared three options for discussion. Staff supports Option 3 which allows vehicle signage on sites with enforceable controls.

9.4.1 All signs not expressly permitted under this chapter or exempt from regulation hereunder in accordance with the previous section are prohibited. Such signs include but are not limited to:

(A) Any sign that copies or imitates official sign or purports to have official status;

(B) Any illuminated tubing or strings of lights, including but not limited to those outlining property lines, open sales areas, rooflines, doors, windows, landscaping, or the edges of wall, except for perimeter down-lighting that is shielded to illuminate open sales areas but no land outside those areas, except those strings of lights exempt under sections 9.2.(F) and 9.6.4(E);

(H) Neon and other similar type signs located in such a manner as to attract public attention from outside the building except as permitted in section 9.6.4(J).

(1) Contain a message clearly intended for public recognition outside the building such as “open,” “drive through” and other similar messages; or

(J) Any other attention-attracting device, except for those conforming to the dimensional, design, lighting and other standards applicable to a sign in the same location;

(K) Any sign that obstructs or substantially interferes with any window, door, fire escape, stairway, ladder, or opening intended to provide light, air, ingress, or egress to any building;

(L) Any sign attached to gas pumps or gas pumps islands that can be read or understood from off the property;

This amendment would allow local businesses the opportunity to advertise and promote their companies on roadways and to park their vehicles on private non-residential property without restriction. Vehicles used in association with Home Occupations would still be regulated. This alternative is the least restrictive and provides limited compliance responsibilities. Since this regulation has been in place for the last 23 years, it has been an effective tool in limiting the signage throughout the Town. Staff is concerned that removing the prohibition would allow any site to have businesses line vehicles along the frontage. This unrestrictive approach could create a much different appearance to our non-residential properties. Staff does not support this option.

This alternative would exclude signage on personal vehicles from the prohibited signs list. Staff would further define personal vehicle signage and commercial vehicle signage. Through the language proposed, commercial vehicles would be those which had a registered commercial license tag. Vehicles used in association with Home Occupations would still be regulated. Staff has concerns regarding the distinction between personal and commercial vehicles. Although staff could easily distinguish the tag type, the personal vehicles used for commercial purposes are one type we often see not complying with the ordinance. Staff does not support this option.

(I) Portable signs, excluding signs on personal vehicles that are parked on the private non-residential property associated with the commercial message;

Devices that are placed on a vehicle that is owned by the business owner and is driven for both the business and for personal use. These vehicles are typically automobiles or trucks.

Devices that are placed on a vehicle that is owned by a business and is used for related duties such as but not limited to catering trucks, landscape trucks or trailers, and vans/buses that transport children for childcare operations.

This alternative creates a definition to clearly identify vehicular signs and provides detailed explanations based on current practices for compliance. The proposed language would require parking of vehicles in designated spaces and not in a location on the site which would increase the amount of allowable signage. An example of this would be to park a catering vehicle at the front of a shopping center near a major intersection instead of the rear of the business where it would be easily accessible to the service entry. As with the other options, this option would not change the regulations for vehicles associated with Home Occupations. Staff supports this option because it continues the current practice of regulating portable signage on vehicles while providing business owners a more detailed description of the regulations.

Vehicular signs shall be allowed on non-residential properties provided that:

(2) The vehicles are parked in lots where the business advertised is located;

(3) The vehicles are parked to the rear or side of a lot to minimize the impact of the signage whenever possible; and

(4) The vehicles are parked in such a manner that they do not function as a ground sign.

Any device which is permanently or temporarily attached to a vehicle and is intended to promote a commercial message. Examples may include but are not limited to magnetic panels, painted designs, or digital images.