Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.0608.TCWSM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE WORK-STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL June 8,2004 Mayor Wally Nichols convened the work-study session at approximately 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL — Present for the roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Wally Nichols; Vice Mayor Mike Archambault; Councilmembers John Kavanagh, Ed Kehe, Kathleen Nicola,and Jay Schlum. (Councilman Keith McMahan was absent.) ALSO PRESENT: Andrew McGuire, Town Attorney; Tim Pickering, Town Manager; Tom Ward, Director of Public Works; Denise Lacey, Planner; and Bev Bender,Town Clerk Mayor Nichols advised the council members that the purpose of the work-study session was to discuss the "A- Frame Alternative Sign Plan" as submitted by the Sign Committee, consisting of the Planner Denise Lacey, Councilwoman Kathleen Nicola, Planning & Zoning Commissioners Wayne Tall and Dennis Brown; Business Owners Sal Ripoli (Mama's Italian Kitchen), Charlie Keller (Sorelli's on the Vine), Jim Myczek (Grapables), Lou Mirabella (Chocofin), and Sherry Sledge (Bodyworks); Frank Ferrara, Chamber of Commerce; Zoning Administrator Molly Bosley,Director of Public Works Tom Ward, and Resident Richard Frederick. Town Manager Tim Pickering reviewed the history of the A-frame sign ordinance, noting that A-frame signs would be outlawed in approximately 18 months. He continued that Council had charged the Sign Committee with developing acceptable alternatives to A-frame signs and recognized Planner Denise Lacey for the efforts she had expended on the project. Ms. Lacey thanked the entire Sign Committee for their dedication in formulating the overall plan. (A complete copy of the "A-Frame Alternative Sign Plan — PowerPoint Presentation"may be viewed at the Town Clerk's office.) Ms.Lacey identified the following challenges of the Committee: ➢ Visibility ➢ Lack of Addressing ➢ Sign Maintenance ➢ Sign Clutter The following solutions were formulated: Uniform Addressing: All commercial buildings would be required to display an exterior address number no less than 6" in height. These address numbers would be placed adjacent to the right-of-way. Block Addressing: The Town of Fountain Hills would install block address signage on Saguaro Blvd. and Palisades Blvd, with the exact design, color placement, and cost to be determined after approval of the plan. In addition, the Committee suggested that Town Council direct the Street Department to implement block addressing on all future street signs. Business Area Signage: Nineteen commercial business areas were identified within the town,eight of which did not have visibility from the main thoroughfares, i.e., Fountain Hills North, Avenue of the Founts, Parkview, Fountainside, Colony/Panorama,Tower, Desert Vista,and Amhurst. It was the recommendation of the Committee that the Town install sixteen (16) business area sign panels, utilizing existing town signage posts where possible. The Committee suggested a color scheme of cranberry background with white trim and lettering. The variation in color would indicate a business area, as opposed to a government facility. Business Sign District and Shared Monument Signs: E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 1 of 7 The Committee defined Sign District as: "A group of businesses within a business block, which have been organized into a coordinated group for the purpose of designing and installing a shared monument sign to be located within the business block." Ms. Lacey explained that 51% of property owners located in the same business block/district, within a recognized business area, was required to form a Sign District by applying to the Town of Fountain Hills. The Sign District Plan proposal (design, location, and list of businesses listed) would then be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. A Shared Monument Sign would possess the following characteristics: 1. It would incorporate several signs. 2. It would deliver the business name to driver visibility. 3. It would be between 6—8' tall and approximately 4' wide. Ms. Lacey indicated that the proposal met the goals requested by Council and the challenges identified at the onset. The Sign Committee requested the following support from Council: 1. Uniform Addressing 2. Block Addressing 3. Business Area Signage 4. Sign District or Shared Monument Signs Ms. Lacey concluded that with the combination of business area signs, shared monument signs, and uniform addressing, visibility would increase to all commercial businesses. Business owners could advertise their location within the business area, and the area signage would direct travelers to that area. She continued that staff did support the Sign Committee proposal but suggested that they had concerns that the shared monument sign regulations leave question as to whether or not a business owner would be able to erect an individual monument sign in addition to the shared monument sign. Currently, the sign ordinance allows each business within the Town of Fountain Hills a 5' high, 24 square feet area sign. Based upon staff calculations, approximately 400 monument signs with no minimum spacing requirement are allowed. Shared monument signs would respond to that clutter possibility. Staff suggested the following requirement be added to Section 6.08, Paragraph 28 (a): "Any business participating in a shared monument sign will not be permitted to install or utilize any additional free-standing or monument signs." Staff also held discussions regarding sign height. The Committee suggested that a sign be a maximum of 8' in height and 4' in width, with the exception of a downward slope location, with a maximum of 10' in height with no greater than 8' from curb elevation. Staff thus suggested that this portion of the recommendation be amended as follows: "Sign height maximum shall be determined as follows: Three to four businesses participating allows a maximum height of 6', and five or more businesses participating allows a maximum height of 8'." Vice Mayor Archambault asked Ms. Lacey for clarification that if a business utilized a shared monument sign, they could not also have a monument sign on their property; Ms. Lacey indicated that he was correct in his understanding. Vice Mayor Archambault asked that the wording be clarified to reflect such, and Mr. Pickering indicated that it would be clarified. Councilwoman Nicola asked if there was consideration for a monument sign that was located against a building as opposed to those close to the road. Ms. Lacey indicated that staff had made the recommendation after the proposal was submitted from the Sign Committee, adding that monument signs were typically too costly to be located close to the building. She added that the purpose of a shared monument sign was for multiple businesses to be able to pool their funds for the purpose of a monument sign. Councilwoman Nicola asked if the Dominion Building, for example, would be precluded from joining the business area district, and Ms. Lacey responded that the amendment included a statement that special circumstances might be determined by the zoning E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 2 of 7 administrator; however, the Dominion Building had a comprehensive sign plan and would typically not elect to go into a shared monument sign, as they would lose the additional signage that they have with a comprehensive sign plan. 1/41k ,,r Mayor Nichols asked if any Fountain Hills business would be required to remove a sign due to the proposed amendment to the proposal. Ms. Lacey indicated that she was unaware of any such case. Councilman Kavanagh thanked the committee for the proposal. He then asked if he owned a business utilizing an existing monument sign, if another business could place a sign on his property. Ms. Lacey responded that it would not be allowed. She then cited the definition for"business block", noting that signs must be placed within that business block. If the business owner with an existing monument sign were not a part of that business district,the sign could not be placed on his property. Councilman Kavanagh then asked if a business block consisted of everyone in the boundaries of the particular street(s). She responded that each Sign District must be contiguous. Councilman Kavanagh then asked for a definition of"contiguous business area". Ms. Lacey indicated that the businesses would need to be attached in some manner, and 51% of the property owners would be required to form that Sign District. Councilman Kavanagh asked if companies facing Saguaro and those facing enterprise could form one district. Ms. Lacey responded that roadways or alleys divided Sign Districts, pointing out the alley dividing the two suggested districts. She also noted a 150 ft. space requirement between monument signs. Councilman Kehe asked if a business that did not wish to participate in a Sign District could they place a monument sign on their property, and Ms. Lacey indicated that they could do so if they did not opt into the Sign District, still allowing a reduction in sign clutter. Councilman Kehe then asked if a shopping center with one tenant not joining the Sign District would be prohibited from placing a sign on that shopping center's property. Ms. Lacey indicated that multi-tenanted shopping centers would fall under the comprehensive sign plan guidelines, and the property owner would then control whether or not the sign could be placed on that property. The current regulation would not be changed. After citing a portion of Section 6.08, (Maximum number of signs per Sign District is two.), Vice Mayor Archambault asked if a large district such as District 10 could only have two monument signs. Ms. Lacey responded that the Sign District could be broken down, as they are different from the business areas. Any business area might contain many Sign Districts. Councilman Schlum asked Ms. Lacey to review where signs could be placed in one sample district. Ms. Lacey recapped that multi-tenanted buildings were ruled by a comprehensive sign plan, and that plan would allow for a shared monument sign. Any request for a shared monument sign would need to be brought forward by the property owner upon which the sign would be placed. Because of the number of individual monument signs in particular areas, those areas would most likely not utilize shared monument signs. She continued, discussing the possibility of shared monument signs in the specific area of Colony Drive. Councilman Kehe asked if existing Town of Fountain Hills placards in the middle of the town could be removed, as they were redundant and appeared to be inappropriate. Ms. Lacey noted that the Committee did not consider removal of the Town of Fountain Hills placards, as it felt that they were an "identifier", sponsored by the Town of Fountain Hills. Director of Public Works Tom Ward then responded that the signs were intended to make a statement by the original committee creating the town directional signs and suggested that their intention be respected. Councilman Kavanagh asked where in the proposed ordinance the requirement was for three tenants per monument. Ms. Lacey responded that it was not three tenants, but 51% of the tenants,to create a Sign District. Councilman Kavanagh asked who would most likely use the shared monument signs, and Ms. Lacey responded that those businesses having difficulty directing visitors to their buildings would be the foremost user of the thimw signs. She also noted that Mama's Italian Kitchen would be a prime candidate for a shared monument sign with the other businesses in the Parkview Plaza area. Business Owner Sal Ripoli indicated that a shared monument sign would be allowed on Parkview (off Saguaro) if the property owner gave permission. Ms. Lacey reiterated E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 3 of 7 that the purpose of the proposal was to accomplish an alternative to A-frame signs. Mr. Ripoli indicated that if the A-frame signs were eliminated without an alternative, they would not receive the same visibility. Councilman Kavanagh noted that the term "property owners" was used in Section 6.08 (28) (a) (i). Mr. Ripoli indicated that they meant "business owners", but that a provision needed to be in place for approval of the property owner. Ms. Lacey suggested changing the wording of 6.08, (28), (a), (i) from "property owners" to "business owners". Councilman Kavanagh asked why there was no maximum size requirement on the exterior addresses, and Ms. Lacey responded that they had never experienced an exterior address that was too large. Councilman Kavanagh then asked if the Town would charge the address square footage against their overall sign content. Ms. Lacey responded that the zoning ordinance stated that addressing was not counted toward the total aggregate sign. Ms. Lacey explained that exterior addresses could be located either on the building wall and/or monument wall. Councilman Kavanagh asked that the subject be clarified, and it was suggested that the words "on the wall" be deleted from the wording. Regarding block addressing, Councilman Kavanagh asked who would approve that addressing. Ms. Lacey indicated that the work-study was to consider the proposal brought forth by the Sign Committee, an alternative to the A-frame sign. A budget would be set after it was determined whether the proposal would be accepted. Councilman Kavanagh then asked if staff would submit design guidelines, and Ms. Lacey responded in the affirmative. Mayor Nichols asked if there was funding in the current budget for installation of business signage, and Mr. Pickering indicated that there was not. The estimated figure for this purpose was approximately $10,000, to be a portion of the 2005 budget. It was the Committee's intention to have the signs in place prior to the date on which A-frame signs would be removed. Councilman Schlum asked for specific information on the placement and cost of the block addressing. Mr. Ward indicated that no determination had yet been made, as the required locations were unknown at that time. Councilwoman Nicola asked if the block addressing would be attached to the median signs, and Mr. Ward responded in the affirmative. Councilwoman Nicola suggested that those signs be completed in-house. In response to a question from Councilman Kehe, Ms. Lacey indicated that Lou Maribella was not present. Ms. Lacey stated he had originally been on the Sign Committee, but he had requested that Sherry Sledge (Body Works) be a part of the Committee in his place. She continued that Ms. Sledge had provided great contribution to the proposal. Councilman Kehe asked that the monument signs reflect the Southwest concept. Ms. Lacey indicated that the Town of Fountain Hills did not have design review control over buildings or signage; they could only provide guidelines for signage. Councilman Kavanagh asked why the cranberry background with white lettering was chosen in order to differentiate the signage from governmental signage, suggesting public input on the color itself. Ms. Lacey responded that repeat visitors would know to look for a different color, as opposed to blending in with existing signs. Cranberry signage would designate a business area, to differentiate it from a business facility such as the Town Hall or the Community Center. Mr. Ward advised Councilman Kavanagh that feedback had received from the public on the Town directional signage that they were too aesthetically pleasing, thus not readable. Councilman Kavanagh reiterated his request for public input on the color selection. Councilwoman Nicola indicated that the Town trademark color was blue, and there were certain guidelines that had to be adhered to regarding the color. Ms. Lacey agreed, noting that the original blue color (and green) they had selected was not acceptable. Councilman Kavanagh then asked for suggestions from staff to be put out for E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 4 of 7 public input. Mayor Nichols suggested that information be posted on Channel 11. He continued that the Committee was to be congratulated for working together. It was his opinion that the results of the process not be"tinkered"with too much. (ii ,, Ms. Lacey reviewed the rationale for new districts signage: District New/Additional Signage? 1 Yes 2 Yes 3 No 4 No 5 No 6 Yes 7 Yes 8 Yes 9 Yes 10 Yes 11 Yes 12 Yes 13 Yes 14 No 15 No 16 No 17 No 18 No 19 No LAY She clarified that business districts that were not scheduled for directional signage already had excellent monument signage, were involved in a comprehensive sign plan, or had the availability of erecting their own monument signs. Vice Mayor Archambault asked if it was possible to erect monument signage in District 19 since it was "below" Saguaro. Ms. Lacey indicated that their signage was currently located within the right-of-way with an encroachment permit. She noted that staff was currently working on an alternative placement that would move the signage further east, providing greater visibility. Councilwoman Nicola added that the District 19 location was the rationale for adding the 10' height possibility in the proposal. Councilwoman Nicola asked staff if accommodations could be made for a shared monument sign to have a higher base, placing the signage from their particular maximum of 6' to 8'. Ms. Lacey responded that accommodations had not been made for that instance, but the shared monument signs in those areas would have more than three people, allowing them the 8' maximum. Special exceptions would not be entertained. Vice Mayor Archambault asked for a mock-up sign at the Town Council meeting; Ms. Lacey responded that staff would provide same. Councilman Kavanagh asked if staff would (1) provide alternative color schemes for Council's review and (2) ask the existing A-frame permit holders what percentage of those would be eligible to participate in the new signage program. Councilman Kavanagh noted previous discussions to keep the industrial companies on Laser Drive from being isolated. He offered that, based on the current proposal, the previously-discussed large monument sign for those industrial companies would not be realized, asking that the proposal be amended to provide that area with a larger monument sign on the Town's right-of-way. Ms. Lacey indicated that if the proposal were amended for that area, it would have to be amended for every area. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 5 of 7 Councilman Kavanagh asked for a legal opinion on how to provide more signage for the area, as the Town had closed off one of the Laser Drive's entrances. Town Attorney McGuire indicated that the Town was required to be uniform in regulations. He added that if you carve out one regulation that is different from the rest, it is then subject to challenge, adding that it would most likely be a violation of the State Law for Uniformity. Councilman Kavanagh asked if there were a manner in which to waive certain requirements, and Mr. McGuire NINIT responded that there was not a PUD for signage, but this issue could again be explored with the other municipalities. He expressed reservations that it may not be possible to do so. Mayor Nicholas asked if Section 6.08, (28) (b) (vii) (Zoning Administrator) would provide the flexibility that Councilman Kavanagh was looking for. Mr. McGuire responded that the Zoning Administrator had flexibility within placement issues, but an off-premise sign was what was suggested. He continued that by code off- premise signs were not permitted in Fountain Hills. Councilwoman Nicola pointed out that the paragraph Mayor Nichols referred to was in the event that placement was 148 feet within monument signs, as opposed to the prescribed 150 feet. She noted that anything in the right- of-way would have to have a right-of-way encroachment permit, subject to more stringent review. It was her understanding that the intent for the area was a monument sign indicating that the Laser Park was located in that area, not enumerating the specific businesses. Councilman Kavanagh clarified that he was hoping for a sign that the area could erect at their expense. Councilman Kavanagh asked how individual businesses could join a monument sign at a later date. Ms. Lacey indicated that an amendment to the Sign District could be made at a cost to the district itself. Councilman Kavanagh noted that there would not be a uniform size for each district and asked if the Council could create a standardize sign size. Ms. Lacey suggested that the discussion was moving into sign design, and the Town did not regulate sign design per Town Attorney McGuire. Councilman Kavanagh then asked Mr. McGuire directly if the Council could control signage design. Mr. McGuire indicated that Council could only dictate detail if every sign were the same. He continued that a specific design guideline would have to be 401) specified. Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that he wanted a specific design, not a preferred design guideline. Mr. McGuire indicated that there was no statutory authority for design review in Arizona law; design review springs out of zoning which is occupied by the State. He indicated that he would continue looking for an alternative, concluding that there was no authority not to do it, but he was certain that there was no specific authority that allowed it. He reiterated that the proposal was an alternative to A-frames, and if Councilman Kavanagh's alternative was to provide a uniform system of signs,that would be a different matter entirely. Councilman Kavanagh asked if a clause could be inserted indicating that if any part of the design was deemed unconstitutional, the entire ordinance would be void. Mr. McGuire noted that Councilman Kavanagh was suggesting a"severability clause"and that an "all or nothing" clause would provide for the Council's legislative discretion to remove the sign ordinance entirely. Mr. McGuire noted that the Town preferred to stay away from items in zoning ordinances that would tell future councils that their decisions had already been made for them. He added that a"doomsday clause" was not illegal,just unusual. Mr. Pickering indicated that staff would look at the text area to assure more uniformity before it was again presented to Council. Councilman Archambault MOVED to adjourn the meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Councilman Schlum and PASSED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. J E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 6 of 7 TOWN 0 TAI HILLS By: ally NI s, or ATTEST AND iA 'fl PREPARED BY: t' Bevelyn J. Ben y', n Clerk CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work-Study Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 8th day of June 2004. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 1ST day of July 2004. By: ,(i'(- 2 ,,Aika...‹, Bevelyn J. Ben0r, own Clerk L L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-6-8-04.doc Page 7 of 7