City of Reno
Nevada

Ordinance
5859

Staff Report (For Possible Action): Ordinance Introduction - Bill No. ________ Case No. TXT13-00002 (On-Premise Digital Signs) Ordinance amending the Reno Municipal Code Title 18, “Annexation and Land Development”, Chapter 18.16, “Signs,” relating to the regulation of on-premises digital advertising displays, together with other matters properly relating thereto.

Information

Department:Community Development - PlanningSponsors:
Category:OrdinanceWards:All Wards

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation:  The Planning Commission recommends Council adopt the requested text amendment by ordinance.

 

Proposed Motion:  I move to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

 

Text Amendment

 

First Reading:  I move to refer Bill No. __________ for a second reading and adoption.

 

Staff Report Formal Body

Summary:  This is a request to amend the Reno Municipal Code Title 18, “Annexation and Land Development,” Chapter 18.16, “Signs,” to add standards as they relate to on-premises digital (flashing/animated) signs.

 

Previous Council Action:  On November 4, 2015 the City Council held a public hearing to review the Planning Commission’s recommendation related to digital signs.  A majority of the City Council directed staff to bring back an ordinance that allows digital signs where they are currently allowed and with the following standards:

1.      Special Use Permits required for any on-premise digital display located within 300 feet of residentially zoned property.

2.      Brightness standards shall be 5,000 nits during daylight hours and 1,500 nits during nighttime hours, with automatic dimming during inclement weather.

3.      All existing on-premise digital displays are required to come into compliance with brightness standards within 24 months.

4.      No on-premise digital displays are allowed to be constructed with 300 feet of the right-of-way of the following: (1) any portion of the Mt. Rose Highway; (2) Interstate 80 west of Robb Drive; (3) Highway 395 north of North McCarran Boulevard; and (4) Interstate 80 south of McCarran Boulevard.  Any existing signs located within these areas can only be modified with the approval of a special use permit.

 

Background:  The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the original draft ordinance.  Their recommendations as they relate to the original draft are attached to this staff report.

 

Attached to this staff report are other sections of RMC Title 18.16 that are related to the proposed ordinance but have no proposed changes.

 

Advisory Commission Vote:  Reno Planning Commission’s recommendation is attached to this staff report.

 

Financial Implications:  None at this time.

 

Legal Implications:  None at this time.

 

Ordinance or Resolution

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RENO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, “ANNEXATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT”, CHAPTER 18.16, “SIGNS,” RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF THE BRIGHTNESS AND LOCATION OF ON PREMISES FLASHING OR ANIMATED SIGNS, TOGETHER WITH OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.

 

SPONSORED BY:  RENO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENO DO ORDAIN:

 

              SECTION 1.  Chapter 18.16 of the Reno Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Section 18.16.702, the to read as follows:

 

Section 18.16.702.  Additional Regulations for Flashing/Animated Signs.

 

(a)              No flashing/animated sign shall exceed 1,500 nits between sunset and sunrise. No flashing/animated sign shall exceed 5,000 nits between sunrise and sunset.  Signs shall automatically adjust/dim due to changes in ambient light, such as inclement weather.

 

(b)              Any flashing/animated sign constructed prior to December 2, 2015, shall be brought into conformance with the nit standards listed in Section 18.16.702(a) above by December 2, 2017.

 

(c)              Flashing/animated signs shall only be allowed within 300 feet of residentially zoned property with the approval of a special use permit.  The 300 feet shall be measured from the base of the sign to the property line of the residentially zoned parcel.

 

(d)              No flashing/animated signs shall be allowed within 300 feet of the right-of-way of:

 

(i)              State Route 431 (Mount Rose Highway);

 

(ii)              Interstate 80 west of Robb Drive, to the western most City limit;

 

(iii)              U.S. 395 north of North McCarran Boulevard; and

 

(iv)              Interstate 580 south of South McCarran Boulevard.

 

Any flashing/animated signs located within these areas which were in existence prior to December 2, 2015, may only be altered, enlarged, replaced or relocated with the approval of a special use permit.

 

SECTION 2.  Chapter 18.16 of the Reno Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding certain wording to and deleting certain wording from Section 18.16.804, the same to read as follows:

 

Section 18.16.804.  Alteration, Enlargement, or Relocation of On-Premises Sign.

 

(a)              Except as provided in Paragraph 18.16.702(d) above [N]no permit shall be issued for the alteration, enlargement, or relocation of a nonconforming sign unless any changes decrease the amount of any nonconforming size by a minimum of 25 percent and any nonconforming height by a minimum of 25 percent. Methods of lighting shall not be changed until all other elements of the sign are brought into full conformance.

 

(Ord. No. 5189, § 1, 9-26-00; Ord. No. 6201, § 1, 9-14-11; Ord. No. 6232, § 1, 6-13-12)

 

SECTION 3:  Should any section, clause, or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.

 

SECTION 4.  This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage, adoption and publication in one issue of a newspaper printed and published in the City of Reno.

 

SECTION 5.  The City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council of the City of Reno is hereby authorized and directed to have this Ordinance published in one issue of the RenoGazette Journal, a newspaper printed and published in the City of Reno.

 

PASSED AND ADOPTED this       day of                 ,       , by the following vote of the Council:

 

AYES:

 

NAYS:

 

ABSTAIN:

 

ABSENT:

 

 

              APPROVED this           day of                                           ,      .

 

 

 

 

                                                                

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF RENO

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

                                                                         

CITY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENO, NEVADA

 

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 

 

 

 

 

 

TXT13-00002 (On-Premise Digital Signs) - ord - CCH - 111815 CC mtg.doc

-1-

Meeting History

Nov 18, 2015 10:00 AM Video Reno City Council Regular

Mayor Schieve asked if proper notice was given.

City Clerk Turney stated that proper notice was given and 37 letters in opposition and 1 in support were received.

Mayor Schieve opened the public hearing.

Claudia Hanson, Community Development Planning Manager, presented an overview of the Staff Report.

Council Member Jardon asked about changes to signs that will be grandfathered in.

Ms. Hanson explained that existing signs can receive standard maintenance and upkeep. However, if they want to alter, enlarge, or replace the sign, a Special Use Permit (SUP) would be required.

There was discussion regarding the need to clarify the term "alter".

Council Member Delgado requested changing Item 'd' to say that animated signs shall only be allowed within 750 feet of residentially zoned property instead of 300 feet.

Mayor Schieve opened the public comment portion of the hearing.

Andrew MacKay, P.O. Box 7320, representing the Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, requested clarity on areas of the ordinance and the meaning of the term "alter".

Rob Medeiros, 4385 Juniper Trail, representing Boomtown Casino, discussed concerns about replacing older signs.

The following four individuals spoke in opposition to digital signs: 1) Berry Hall, 1990 Ives Avenue; 2) Lori Wray, 2802 Outlook Drive, representing Scenic Nevada; 3) Kathy Bohall, 14300 North Whisperwood; and 4) Sue Smith, 575 Creighton Way.

Zack Munson, 405 Carlene Drive, Sparks, discussed concerns regarding restricting rotating signs.

Tom MacIntosh, 350 Gold Ranch Road, Verdi, representing the Gold Ranch Casino, wants to be allowed to update signs with new technology without coming in for an SUP.

Tom D. Weatherby, 5586 St. Andrews Court, representing digital sign owners and the sign industry, discussed concerns about nit (i.e., a unit of luminance equal to 1 candela per square meter, measured perpendicular to the rays of the source) limits during the daytime.

John Frankovich, attorney representing Summit Sierra, requested clarification regarding the Mount Rose Highway versus a scenic corridor.

Lea Tauchen, 410 South Minnesota Street, Carson City, representing the Retail Association of Nevada, expressed concerns with the scenic corridor restrictions and the brightness measuring standards.

Mayor Schieve requested clarification on nits versus foot candles.

Joe Henry, Acting Code Enforcement Manager, explained nits versus foot candles and discussed why nits are used.

John Hara, 65 Woodchuck Court, discussed concerns regarding brightness measurements.

Mike Draper, Grand Sierra Resort, discussed brightness ratings for signs.

Karen Munson, 405 Carlene Drive, Sparks, discussed concerns with nit gun readings, the proposed change in distance from scenic corridors, and confusion regarding the grandfathering in clause.

Michael Pagni, attorney representing the Eldorado, Silver Legacy, Tamarack and Bonanza casinos, expressed support for the ordinance as proposed and clarified by staff, with the exception of the proposed change for residential adjacency from 300' to 750'.

Tray Abney, 449 South Virginia Street, representing The Chamber, discussed concerns with the inconsistent use of nits.

Greg Ferraro, Nevada Resort Association, suggested taking more time to understand the implications of the proposed language change going from 300 feet to 750 feet.

Mayor Schieve closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

Council Member Jardon and Ms. Hanson discussed clarification of the language regarding alteration of signs requiring an SUP. It was decided to remove the word "alter" so that only enlarging or relocating a grandfathered in sign would trigger the need for an SUP.

It was moved by Council Member Delgado, seconded by Council Member McKenzie to refer Bill No. 6950 for a second reading and adoption as amended, and to accept Section 1, Section 18.16.702 Subsection (a).

Motion carried.

Additional motions were made as follows.

RESULT:FIRST READ [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Oscar Delgado, Councilmember
SECONDER:Paul McKenzie, Councilmember
AYES:Hillary Schieve, Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, Oscar Delgado, Paul McKenzie, Neoma Jardon, David Bobzien