Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011008CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JANOARY 10, 200,7:00 PM CITY HALL ANNEX, THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -January 10, 2008 EXH 2 R. Sepler, Draft PTMC Chapter ] 7.76, SIGNS, December 3, 2007 EXH 3 R. Sepler and S. Wassmer, Memo to Planning Conuitission, Approaches to Address Signage Above ] 7 feet in Height for Larger Buildings, December 3, 2007 EXH 4 R. Sepler, Memo to Planning Commission, Off-premise Signage, December 3, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray and George Unterseher. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Vice Chair Steve Emery read the rules of order for the election process. Julian Ray nominated Harriet Capron for Chair. Ms. Capron declined. Brill LeMaster nominuted Steve Emery for Chair. (Kristen Nelson said that she had intended to nominate Alice King, who had declined.) Steve Emery was unanimously elected as Planning Commission Chair for 2008. Jerry Fry nominated Bill LeMaster for Vice Chair. Kristen Nelson nominated Alice King for Vice Chair; Ms. King declined. Bill LeMaster was unanimously approved for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2008. IV. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Steve Emery asked for any changes to the revised agenda; [here were none. "I'he revised agenda was approved as written, all in favor. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of November 8, 2007: Mr. Unterseher moved for approval of the rninutes, as written; Mr. LeMaster seconded. The minutes of November 8, 2007 were approved us written, with two abstentions and none opposed: 6/0/2. Minutes of December 13, 2007: Ms. Nelson moved for approval of the minutes, as written; Mr. Unterseher seconded. The minutes of December 13, 2008 were approved as written, nzth two abstentions and none opposed: 6/0/2. Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 January 10, 2008 VI. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None VII. NE1'V BUSINESS -None VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sign Code Revisions (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler distributed paper copies of materials that had also been e-mailed previously. Noting that there was now a full Commission in attendance, he said he would briefly revisit the memo from the previous meeting (EXH 3, addressing a prior problem), then discuss the off-premise signage and address the questions listed in EXH 4). Should there he significant changes based on either of the memos, it might be necessary to continue the topics at a later date. 17 Foot Height and Design Review Exemption -Regarding the several problem signs, including the illegal QFC sign, Mr. Sepler recalled that the Planning Commission had given staff direction that these matters should be resolved and that provisions should be made for dealing with future cases. He said that in reviewing the code more closely, he had found there was already extant a methodology to address such circumstances: It allows, with unanimous approval of the Commercial/Mixed Use Design Review Board, for signs to be over 17 feet in height. It includes guidance that the sign is to be proportionate to the scale of the building itself. Staff believes this adequately addresses the issue and provides a way to remedy the circumstances, but does not condone the cases in question. Commissioners expressed their pleasure that a solution already existed. Mr. Emery asked if a cross reference could be provided in the code to assist people in accessing the procedure. Mr. Unterseher noted that only one of the existing cases has a sign permit. Mr. Emery asked if QFC would still need to go through a design review committee. Mr. Sepler said he believed that to be the case, since they had never received approval. He confirmed that they had requested a variance and were denied. They would need to apply under the Design Review procedures, meeting the criteria of demonstrating the need for a sign height greater than 17 feet. Ms. King asked if the criteria for design review would be less stringent than for a variance, and Mr. Sepler said yes, because the variance requires demonstration of hardship. Commissioners agreed that the existing method would be satisfactory. Mr. Unterseher noted that there are very few approved signs in town. Mr. Sepler said that was the case for sandwich board signs. Mr. Unterseher noted, however, that there were virtually no "stickers" indicating that signs had been approved. Mr. Sepler said the practice of applying the stickers had lapsed but it was unclear when that happened, although apparently it happened within the last 5-8 years. Mr. Unterseher suggested that the sign checklist should be revised; Mr. Sepler said he would convey these comments to DSD (Development Services Department). Mr. Unterseher suggested that as part of the annual business license renewal mailing businesses should be advised that tighter enforcement would be happening for those who had not applied for sign permits by a certain date. Mr. Sepler said it would be well to complete the off premise sign issue, on the agenda for this meeting to determine what would and would not be allowed. He mentioned that police reserve officers were undergoing training to do sign code and zoning enforcement. In response to questions about the details of enforcement, Mr. Sepler said that P/arming Commission Page 2 of8 January 10, 2008 DSD is charged with permitting and applications, including enforcement. However, a draft ordinance is coming forward at [he next meetingiworkshop of City Council that would delegate a portion of code enforcement to the police reserve. The current system of multi-step warnings is drawn out over a long period of time and violations are no[ being addressed on a timely basis. Mr. LeP.4aster asked if the work-around method (in C-I, C-iI, C-III) should also apply to mixed use areas. After a brief clarification, Mr. Sepler said he would make a note to discuss that further. In general, he said, there had been feedback from the Ad Hoc Review Committee that mixed use signage should be smaller. OjJ Premise Signs Mr. Sepler reviewed the history of regulation over time. He cited examples and noted that there are off premise signs for uses that are not even within the city limits. Such signs are restricted in rights of ways for safety, access and aesthetic reasons. He noted that there is a significant movement nationally to reduce large off premise signs in an effort to enhance views, etc., but there are also ongoing legal challenges in response to the degree of regulation. Placement and location issues are common. Businesses paying premium rents in prime locations prefer not to share the street and sidewalk in front of their buildings for signs of non-prime location businesses. Opponents consider this to be unfair subsidization to those not paying [he premiums. Proponents would say that it broadens the economic success of the district. In Pon Townsend, off premise signs are only allowed in the Historic District, uptown and downtown. Sandwich board signs seen outside this area are illegal. Mr. Sepler noted that allowing such signage in the historic commercial area was aimed at promoting commercial activity in this district and minimizing car trips. A distinction is made between pedestrian oriented and auto oriented areas. The question has been raised in past Planning Commission sessions as to whether or not there are other circumstances where off premise signs should be allowed. To that end, staff prepared a list of questions to guide the discussion (EXH. 4). Where would off premise signs be allowed? Mr. Sepler asked if signs should be allowed in residential areas. Mr. Emery questioned whether the definition of off premise signs w-as strictly interpreted as business signs, or did it include, for example, yard or garage sales. Mr. Sepler said there is provision in the code for Open Houses; usually garage sales are not an issue, being temporary one day occurrences. He posed a question about a sign for a home business, such as knife sharpening, being posted permanently on a residential comer. Mr. Unterscher suggested that if any off premise signs are allowed, they must be directional signs. Mr. Ray referred to the cities of Carmel, Sedona, Taos, Sante Fe, and Ojai, stating that the signs in these cities are very, very effective. He described the standardization, kiosk modality and abundance of signs; he said some are directional. They advertise effectively, add to the aesthetic of the community and help orient, and so are "less of a topic". There was additional discussion about the look and feel of the styles in each city; characteristics include small size, muted colors high contrast and appropriate location. Mr. Ray suggested that such cities should be used as models for designing a signage system for Port Townsend. A lengthy discussion about the purpose of the signage under discussion ensued, covering directional signage, business advertising, vehicle versus pedestrian oriented. Mr. Ray suggested that a top down approach to signage be taken, with deferral of details to be tleshed out later. Mr. Sepler recalled earlier discussions about kiosks downtown, noting the number of design/implementation questions and issues that had been raised. P/arming Commission Page 3 of 8 January 10,.2008 Mr. LeMaster noted the small scale of Port Townsend, and suggested coming back [o the question of whether off premise signs aze an acceptable method of advertising a business activity. He said he did not think kiosks were needed, except possibly at the ferry landing and cited his preference for sign boards. He asked how businesses no[ situated directly in the concentrated historic commercial districts downtown should be allowed to advertise with signs. He said it would be a burdensome task for the community [o undertake a comprehensive signage plan at this time, and suggested addressing the specific issue of off premise sandwich boards. Mr. Ray noted that shopping malls always have kiosk like signage, and that the main shopping districts of Port Townsend are mall-like, as Mr. LeMaster had stated. He said that many more businesses would like to participate in the mall experience. He said that a certain culture has been established for malls, so that people know what to expect and where to look for information when they visit a mall, and that should be a guiding strategy. He stressed the need for meeting the needs of people in a directional, educational, informative process. Mr. Unterseher added that in surveys ofvisitors to towns/cities considered to have successful signage, responses showed that effective signage was not even noticed - it just worked and thus was not the focus of attention. Kristen Nelson noted that Mr. Ray was implicitly suggesting that sandwich boards be eliminated and replaced with kiosks. Mr. Unterseher noted that there are probably only about six locations where directional signs are needed and they would be for visitors, not residents. He said that is where the kiosks with maps and other information should be located, for either pedestrians or with temporary parking for cars. There was further discussion about various locations in town, types of businesses, auto versus pedestrian traffic and types of signage. Mr. LeMaster suggested that the Commission focus on defining what is broken, and what is the remedy. What is wrong with the code? is it the sign boards, and should they not be allowed? Ms. Nelson agreed, saying that there is already a design standard and approval process for signs. She suggested that if the sign code is enforced, as written proposed, 90% of the problem would be solved. Businesses catering to tourists are already clustered in the historic district. Mr. Unterseher said he agreed with the need for enforcement, but did not understand why sign boards would be allowed only in the historic district. Jerry Fry said he sees the needs for standards in moving forward in stages, but that he believes the focus should be on the existing problem: sign proliferation with no controls and no enforcement. Once that is under control, the plan for going forward should be addressed. He said kiosks make great sense for downtown, but not for auto oriented traffic, which requires directional signs visible from vehicles. Mr. Sepler noted that much research and gathering of kiosk examples had already been done, and there had been agreement within the Planning Commission on appropriateness for downtown. Outside the historic uptown and downtown districts, issues arise. Individual businesses are not going to be allowed to make signs and drop them in the right of way. However, there is also interest in coordinated directional signage for districts and possibly for some businesses at certain locations; he said they don't work everywhere. After further discussion, Harriet Capron asked about the training of reserve officers for sign code enforcement. Mr. Sepler said that direction was needed from the Planning Commission before Planning Commission Page 9 of 8 January 10, 2008 these reserve officers are charged with their tasks; the issue has been on hold, but City Council would like to see this issue resolved. Mr. Unterseher asked if the condition of the signs must be maintained; Kristen Nelson said that business are required to keep signs in good_condition. Mr. Sepler added that the inventory had revealed that there was a problem with sandwich boards. Mr. Sepler recalled that kiosks were to address some sort of way finding in certain districts, but that there was an open question about how to address other (non-walking) districts, where kiosks are not expected to be effective. He said he was hearing the need for a hierarchy: getting people from one district to the other and then having more specific business signage in that district. He added that City Council would not proceed unless the Planning Commission defines this further. Mr. Fry noted that staging is important. He advocated development of kiosk programs for the two elements of the historic district first. The notion is to experimenC to determine what works and make refinements, and to expand later. Mr. Ray repeated his earlier admonitions that an all inclusive process is necessary; he said it seems like more than a kiosk (issue). He advocates an overall schema, a comprehensive umbrella covering all signage needs; a holistic process. Mr. Sepler explained that that is termed `way finding'. He said it would be appropriate to come up with a purpose statement that introduces the kiosk idea. Mr. Ray stated again that "this is the philosophical discussion that has to happen'. Ms. Capron responded that the discussion could go on without end, i.e. "We could spend the rest of our natural lives talking about this." Mr. Sepler interjected that it is appropriate to lay out the way finding program and lay out phases, with kiosks downtown first; he said the question is how to implement. At this time, we are awaiting Main Street's new design board and the collection of funds (for kiosks). They will administer; the program must be self funding. Regarding the sign boards, its the same situation, with the need to craft some idea of signage for Kearney SVeet, eta The City does not have the funds to do this; [he program must fund itself, district by district. Mr. Fry stated that the city's role is set standards, and the community leaders need to step up and make that happen. Mr. Unterseher added that a previous comment about starting with a good model is important. If there is a good example, others will follow. Mr. LeMaster said [hat he had to take exception. He is supportive of directional signs, but feels that just putting names of businesses on a signpost is not informative. If "advertising" is not permitted, then the question becomes "Why should one pay? - it won't be effective." Mr. Fry pointed out that a kiosk, like a mall directory, has classifications for restaurants, apparel, etc. This adds to the value and effectiveness. Ms. Nelson added that all signs will go through design review process. Mr. Fry noted that there is a different problem in the historic district. There are no adequate standards for second floors; vacancies are a symptom of the problem. Ms. Nelson noted that without a sandwich board sign, customers had not found her business; she described how the signs really make a difference. Mr. Fry suggested a place where customers can peruse what businesses are located on upper stories. Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 January 10, 2008 Mr. Sepler said that the draft could be amended to define that "only those Water Street businesses located exclusively above the first floor, or not located on Water Street" are allowed to have signs. D.~s. Nelson asked what issues remained to decide. "Do we allow sandwich boards for upper levels and for those not on Water Street, or do we have kiosks?" Mr. Ray mentioned Cannon Beach, OR: He said it has neat signs coming out of buildings. He repeated that the topic is not whether or not to have sandwich boards OR kiosks OR other, but what is effective signage and where it is placed. Mr. Sepler noted that projecting signs are already allowed in Por[ Townsend. Ms. Nelson questioned the visibility of upper story signs; she said that the Sirens sign, for example, is so high up that it isn't noticed. Mr. Ray then made an appeal for using the empirical evidence of what works in other cities. He added that no one's personal preference is the gold standard, and that the process doesn't have to be so subjective. Mr. Sepler said that Port Townsend received a lot of requests for its sign code from other communities, because it is a good sign code. He said that there are a few areas that need attention, as exemplified by the music store and fresh fish (at the Port) signs. He said it was certainly possible to put a chart together (comparing various cities), but that he did not expect the Commission would discover much difference from what Port Townsend already has. For the sake of moving the discussion forward, Mr. Fry suggested that no sandwich board signs be permitted outside the historic district. Ms. Nelson noted that provision was already in the document. She suggested a review of the definitions, instead of the regulations, as a way of talking about the specifics of the drafr. Mr. Sepler asked again if Commissioners can see "a place where a sandwich board sign is appropriate outside the historic district". Mr. LeMaster said he thought the music store should be able to have a sign where it is now, with the owners permission. After a brief discussion, he added that the number should be limited to two or three, at the comer. Alice King suggested that outside the historic district, the schema should be tiered or hierarchical; she said sandwich board signs will not be visually effective. It was acknowledged that the Commission should be focusing on what is "broken" now, and can move on to directions] signage "that points to the uptown historic district" later. Mr. Ray then suggested a straw poll, not a binding vote, on "Sign boards outside of the historic district -yes or no?" Mr. Emery suggested narrowing that to public right of ways outside the historic district. Ms. Nelsen asked for clarification on whether markets or community events should be counted in. Mr. Emery said he wished to encourage event hosts to use the existing large signs at various locales, such as the Fairgrounds and Fort Worden. Mr. LeMaster said that Commissioners seemed to be addressing "permanent continuous operations, commercial or not", to which everyone agreed. There was further discussion about the scope of the question, i.e. whether sandwich board signs should be allowed: within the historic district only for upper floors and off Water Street or with no store front on Water Street; not outside of the historic district; in legitimate commercial areas like the Business Park; and in locations that are not part of a cohesive district, like Washington Street. Mr. Sepler noted that for locations not in the heart of things, "we need to have ways to find them because its good for the whole district; we just aren't agreed on the best way to do it:' Ms. Nelson mentioned that some places are using sandwich board signs like directional signs with a big arrow; this is a small bill board! She said this is not what they are meant to do. Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 January i0, 2008 Mr. Emery mentioned that evolving technology such as mini-GPS devices will reduce the need for signage. Mr. Unterseher mentioned the term "way finding", suggesting it be incorporated into City code. Afrer additional discussion about the desired ends, and the need to set standazds to discourage and prevent the proliferation of distracting signs, Mr. Sepler said he had sufficient direction. Ms. Nelson was concerned that die Commissioners had not yet begun to review the 32 page draft provided by staff. Mr. Sepler summarized: "The Planning Commission is not looking to significantly change the off premise sign requirements; there might be a role at some future time for expanded community or other directional signage -that we should find some good models and figure out how to do it; (we need) better signage for (pointing to) districts because just getting to Uptown right now is kind of mysterious. Downtown, and this is consistent with last time, you don't want sandwich board signs except for upper story and off Water Street stores within the historic district." (Kristen Nelson interjected,."with the written permission of property owners"). He said, "With that, I don't think it changes [he draft. I think it provides clarity for hvo things: since ii is highly unlikely [hat there will be any changes to off premise sign regulations, City Council can proceed with enforcement; we have to have SEPA, we have to have hearings; and start enforcement now (in the historic district)." "The other point is that the topics suggested for investigation must be documented somewhere; we can't insert it in the code because we haven't done it yet, but we need to make certain there is record so we know we are going to do it." Ms. Nelson added, "I just wanted to make certain these things aze also in your list: Steve mentioned to include a reference to the 17 foot height exception that is actually in some other document (i.e., the process for review and exception); to include required maintenance of signs, on and off premise; and looking at the goals for better uptown and directional signage and kiosks." Mr. Sepler then asked if Commissioners wished to work [heir way through the whole document at this meeting or come back to it after he had made minor revisions. There was a discussion about how to address multiple businesses within one building, including those with a Water Street address but without a Water Street storefront; Jordini's and the Flagship Landing shops were mentioned as examples. It was agreed that whether or not there was a building directory, only one shared sandwich board sign would be allowed per building, with clear language covering both upstairs and downstairs businesses. Commissioners commended Mr. Sepler on all the work that had been done on this topic. IX. UPCOMING MEF.TTNGS January 24, 2008 - Signage (continued) and Home Occupations February 7 -Special Joint Workshop Meeting with City Council. Mr. Sepler said that if the recommendations on uptown parking and design are ready, the intention is to bring City Council and the Planning Commission together for a joint meeting on two topics, parking code amendments and new design regulations for uptown. The sense is to have both bodies together to hear the recommendations, have discussion, provide direction and then move it to the Planning Planning Commission Page 7 of B January 10, 2008 Commission for process. He noted that this is tentative pending the scheduling of several events in the next two weeks which might change the City Council schedule. February 14 - He said that the sign code hearing on the 14`" is unlikely because of insufficient time to do the public notice; but that the Home Occupation hearing is possible. X. "OMMUNICATIONS Bill asked for clarification on the types of items or information that are appropriate for Communications. Mr. Sepler explained that it could be a letter from the City Attorney on general issues, or announcements. Mr. Emery added that it meant communications to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sepler noted that after Ferry related business has been completed, this body should undertake discussions about its 2008 work plan in March. At that time, the Commissioners can decide if there are issues they would like to undertake and to send a memorandum to City Council suggesting these be part of the 2008 Planning Commission work plan. XI. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray and Mr. Fry moved and seconded for adjournment. Chair Emery adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM. <~. 'Steve Eme , ~i Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 January 10, 2008