City Council Work Session - AMENDED

Return to the Minutes Page

Meeting Date:	12/08/2015
Co-Submitter:	Roger Eastman, Zoning Code Administrator
From:	Roger Eastman, Zoning Code Administrator
Department:	Community Development
Co-Submitter:

TITLE:

Policy Discussion on Proposed Amendments to Zoning Code Division 10-50.100. (Sign Standards). *THIS ITEM WAS MOVED FROM 8.

DESIRED OUTCOME:

Staff is proposing amendments to Zoning Code Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) in response to the US Supreme Court's decision this year in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign case. This work session will enable staff to talk generally about this case and the impact it has on Flagstaff's sign code. A suggestion will be presented on how the Flagstaff sign standards may be amended to ensure compliance with the court's ruling Staff will be seeking Council direction on the policy issues associated with the proposed amendments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This work session is part of a series of work sessions with the Council on proposed amendments to the Flagstaff Zoning Code. In this work session staff will introduce the outcome of the US Supreme Court's decision in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign case and will explain why changes to the City's sign standards are necessary. The Council will be able to identify any policy issues that warrant a more in-depth discussion, and it is anticipated that Council direction on the policy issues associated with the proposed amendments will be provided.

INFORMATION:

COUNCIL GOALS:
7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan

REGIONAL PLAN:
No Regional Plan goals or objectives specific to signage apply.

Background:
In June this year the US Supreme Court rendered it's decision in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign code case which, clarified when government regulation of speech is content-based. Content-based regulations are presumptively unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision in the Reed case has wide-ranging implications for sign ordinances in cities across the nation.

The key takeaway from the Reed case is that cities cannot categorize signs based on the topic or message being conveyed and then impose restrictions within each content-based category. For example, the current sign code provides different standards for different types of temporary signs such as real estate signs, new development construction signs, and political signs. Subjecting each category of signs to different restrictions is no longer permissible under Reed.

As a result of the Reed decision, every sign code needs to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that it does not contain content-based regulations. Planning staff has worked closely with the City's Attorney's office to understand the implications of the Reed decision on the City's sign code and over the past few months has developed many ideas for amendments to the sign regulations. Staff also participated in a professional development workshop hosted by the Arizona Planning Association in August 2015 on the implications of the Reed case, and was a panelist at two professional conferences in October and November (Quad States Conference in Kansas City in October and the Arizona Planning Association annual conference in November) in which the principles behind the City's draft amendments were presented to the attendees. Staff took advantage of being at these conferences to talk with planners and attorneys familiar with the Reed case to solicit their input and ideas on the City's ideas. The response was very supportive and favorable.

Broad Overview of Proposed Amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards)
A broad overview of the most substantive amendments proposed in the sign standards division of the Zoning Code is provided below. The Planning and Zoning Commission as part of their review of the entire Zoning Code recommended approval of a few minor amendments within the Permanent Sign section of the Code (Section 10-50.100.060) but these will not be presented to the Council at this time. Similarly minor amendments to clarify the intent of a section and improve readability will also not be highlighted at this time. Instead, staff will focus on the amendments needed to ensure consistency with the US Supreme Court's decision. More information on the purpose and intent of the proposed amendments is provided in the attached PowerPoint presentation for the December 8th Council meeting.

10-50.100.020 Applicability:
Within the Exemptions Subsection, the following sign types have been removed or moved to another section of the Code to ensure that the standards are content neutral ; Display Board for Daily Specials (no longer exempted), Political Signs (no longer exempted), Neighborhood or District Sign (moved to the freestanding sign section in the Central District), Real Estate Signs (no longer exempted), Signs Required by Law (included with Government Signs), Vehicle Signs (moved to Other Permanent Sign Types), and Yard and Garage Sale Signs (no longer exempted). It is recommended that the current prohibition on any sign in the right-of-way except for traffic control signs and other government signs will be maintained.

10-50.100.060 Permanent Signs:
The Other Sign Types Subsection has been amended to remove the standards for fuel pump topper signs as these are typically temporary signs rather than permanent signs. Also, the standards for Open Signs have been removed and are now included as part of the Window Sign standards.

10-50.100.090 Temporary Signs:
The greatest number of amendments are in this Section. Many are significant, and are being proposed to ensure consistency with the US Supreme Court's decision in the Reed case.

A. Applicability: Includes minor revisions only that are unrelated to the Reed case to eliminate redundant language.

B. General to All: Includes numerous revisions that are unrelated to the Reed case to eliminate redundant language and simplify the standards. One important amendment is with regard to temporary sign permitting requirements and the length of time that a sign may be displayed. Staff proposes that there should be no limitation on the length of time that a temporary sign may be displayed and no permit would be required, except for temporary wall banners which would be subject to a temporary sign permit and limited to 30 days within a calendar year.

C. Standards for Temporary Signs: This Subsection has been significantly shortened and most of the former standards have been eliminated because, pursuant to Reed, they are not content neutral. This includes for example, the standards for various signs (e.g. temporary construction signs, signs for temporary uses, new occupancy or use signs, grand opening signs, directional signs, promotional signs, going-out-of-business signs, etc.). Furthermore, the standards for different sign types (e.g. A-frame or upright signs, feather or vertical banners, and wall banners) have been consolidated into one table (Table 10-50.100.090.B) to eliminate redundancy and to simplify the Code. This Subsection has also been reorganized as detailed in the bullets below.

1. Time, Place and Manner Restrictions for Temporary Signs. A new Table 10-50.100.090.A will provide all the standards applicable to the placement of temporary signs. It is divided into three sections:
(1) Applicable to All Zones (e.g. includes standards on what elements are prohibited on a temporary sign and design and construction standards);
(2) Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential Zones; and
(3) All Residential Zones (each of these subsections includes standards on period of use, hours of use, allowable sign area and number of signs).

The sign message is not regulated to ensure content-neutrality. However, the total area of temporary signs in commercial and industrial zones is limited to 32 sq. ft. per business while the total area of temporary signs in residential zones is limited to 16 sq. ft. per lot or parcel. This maximum sign area limitation allows for temporary signs with a variety of messages (may be political, business advertising, or ideological) provided they do not exceed the area limitation.
2. Standards for Specific Temporary Sign Types. Table 10-50.100.090.B consolidates the standards for various temporary sign types including height and width, and provides for a variety of sign types including, A-frame or upright signs, feather or vertical banner signs, wall banner signs, and two new sign types, flags displaying a commercial message and yard signs.
3. Civic and Non-Profit Events Signs on City Approved Sign Support Structures. The standards in this Subsection are unchanged except that a purpose statement has been added that clarifies that signs advertising a community event may be placed on these sign structures rather than the current standard which requires them to be located on the sign structure.
4. Sign Walkers. The existing standards have been updated and clarified to make them easier to apply.

10-50.100.100. Sign Districts of Special Designation:
A. Flagstaff Central District. The standards for Neighborhood or District Signs have been moved into the freestanding sign section as these are a type of freestanding sign.
B. Downtown Historic District. The standards for stanchion signs in former Table 10-50.100.090.E (Standards for Temporary Stanchion Signs) have been deleted consistent with the principle of prohibiting all temporary signs in the public right-of-way.
E. Flagstaff Sign Free Zone. This is a new Subsection included into the Zoning Code pursuant to A.R.S. §16-1019 which enables a municipality to establish a sign-free zone in city rights-of-way.

10-50.100.110 Enforcement
The provisions allowing for the removal of temporary signs in public right-of-way and in clear view zones by City code enforcement staff when a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle traffic is present have been moved to this section from the Temporary Signs Section.

At the work session staff will provide a brief overview of the Reed case for the Council and any members of the public in attendance, as well as the rationale for the proposed amendments to the sign standards with a Power Point presentation, a copy of which is attached.

If you have questions, or require clarification on the contents of this staff summary, please contact Roger E. Eastman, AICP, Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator, at reastman@flagstaffaz.gov or (928) 213-2640.

Attachments
Sign Code PowerPoint