Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052208CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF May 22, 2008 7:00 PM CITY HALL -CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ]Yleeting Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -January 24, 2008 EXH 2 Drafr Sign Code Revisions (PTMC Chapter ] 7.76 Suns), May ] 5, 2008 EXII 3 R. Sepler and S. Wassmer, Memorandum: Measurement of Light Intensity and Brightness, May 74, 2008 EXH 4 Garage Sale Signs: matrix comparison of several communities, May 75, 2008 EXH 5 DraII Cornmercia] Design Standards, May , 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ll. ROLL CALL, A quorum of Planning Commission members was present. Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Bill LeMasicr. Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray Excused: Monica Mickhager, George Unterseher III. ACCEPTANCE OP AGENDA The agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Apri! 10, 2008: Julian Ray moved to upproi~e, as written, and Jerry Frv seconded. The minutes gfApr'il 10, 2008 were approved cu nrrflen, all in ~dvor. Minutes of April 24, 2008 -Corrections: Page 5, section 1, "...no more than 72 hours prior to or after.. _' ; "hvo Commissioners were in favor ° (not failect7; Page 9, "Mr. Sepler (not Mr. Emery) said he would..." Bi11 LeMaster moved to approve she minutes, as amended, and Kristen Nelson seconded The minutes ofApril24, 2008 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of7 May ZZ, 7008 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continued Public Hearing -Proposed Revisions to Chapter 17.76 PTMC -Sign Regulations (Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Suzanne Wassmer, Land Use Development Specialist) Mr. Sepler referred to Iluee documents: EXFI 2, the revised draft of the Sign Code dated May IS that incorporates changes requested a[ the previous meeting; EXH. 3, a memorandwn describing "measuring illumination' issues; and EXH 4, matrix comparing garage sale signage in various communities. Regarding EXH 2. the gray highlight indicates text changed since originally discussed. On page 3, he noted the additions under sections A and C_ He pointed out, on page 4, the requirement that all exterior lighting must be shielded. He reviewed all the other new additions, deletions and clariftcations in the revised document. On page 20-21, Mr. Ery asked for clarification on st:x feet verus si_r-root tall monument signs. Ms. Wassmersaid six feet was specified in the original code. He also questioned the language "monument signage as a Changeable Insert _.". Mr. Sepler said this should be "monument signage such as Changeable Insert _..". Under E 2, Mr. Sepler confirmed the text was written as intended. Regarding section ] 7.76.100, he noted the addition ofitem S restricting fluorescent colors. Mr. Ray questioned whether the language was too broad. Mr. Sepler said that the term of art might be "high value, high chromal fluorescent colors', but that the text as presented would be workable. Regarding project signs; Mr. Sepler said that staff had prepared language that would clarify what uses would qualify for this category and what length of time the signs could be left at the site. He said that this is comparable to what would be allowed in otherjurisdictions. Mr. Ray said the section covered his concerns, but he asked about the threshold of six residential units. Mr. Sepler cited the 10,000 square foot that triggers building code changes and the SEPA review requirements. Mr. Ray suggested deletion of the six wait stipulation, leaving all other specifications, to give more flexibility to the developer. Mr. Sepler mentioned the possibility of allowing signs in a mixed use zoning district_ He said staff would consider the suggestions. Under 17.76200, he discussed the sun-setting issue raised by Commissioner Nelson at the prior meeting. He pointed out the proposed provision that would allow six years for legal sandwich board signs to be removed/retired (or to be voluntarily replaced by kiosk signs at an earlier date). Mr. Sepler pointed out the information that had been found on garage sale signs in other communities, EXH 4. In addition, he discussed the effort to tlnd a repeatable mechanism to assess brightness. He said that basically there are two ways. One is for a trained professional to measure the intensity of light at night. The other is to iuspect the lumens shown on the bulbs. The three approaches by other jurisdictions are: to advise that there must be no adverse affect and that there must downward shielding; to use the lumen measurement method; to measure watts and candle power. He noted that the Indiana Council on Outdoor Light Education has become the basis for many P/arming Commission Meeting Page 2 of7 May ZZ, 2008 codes in existence. He said that having reviewed tlvs material, he would advise that the emphasis should be on downward facing and shielded fixtures. Mr. Fry said he would like to discuss the memo on illumination. He suggested that the best approach would be to simply prohibit the adverse affect. Even though the measurement techniques are presently not ideal, he feels that the light measurement technology is changing rapidly and he expects less labor intensive solutions shortly. He suggested trying the simplest approach. Ms. Wassmer said she could not recall any problems with sign illumination during the past several years. Mr. Emery said he had tried, without success, to find a simple formula online. He said he would not support using wattage as an indicator, but was agreeable to having just a reasonable assessment. Mr. Ray also voiced his agreement with the simple approach. Mr. Pry noted the progress [hat has been made in measuring noise and the availability of inexpensive equipment to do so. He expects light measurement to follow that same course. Mr. LeMaster requested clarification that the topic under consideration was luminosity associated with signs, not with design standards for lighting in residential and other communities. Mr. Sepler confirmed that was the case. Mr. LeMaster eonnnented that the garage sale sign provisions seemed too restrictive. He mentioned that such sales can be rained out and may need to be postponed. He noted that one could technically be non-compliant if a garage sale was postponed and signs had to be kept up longer or reported. Mr. LeMaster questioned why the sandwich board signs had to be taken in nightly. Ms. Nelson also questioned the origin of that provision. There was some discussion about the intention. Mr. LeMaster said that if included, it may need to have some additional specificity with regard to hours of operation and closure times of businesses Mr. Pry asked if the regulations related to Advertising Vehicles apply to rental RVs. Mr. Emery also mentioned U-Hauls. Mr. Sepler clarified that the intent was to prohibit a business from regularly parking a vehicle with advertising/signage in front or near its location for the pwpose of adding additional sign space. Several examples were discussed. Ms. Nelson referred to page 30, line 9 and asked why this genera] provision was included. She asked why the statement was needed_ Mr. Sepler said that this would be the starting point for any enforcement action. There is a legal requirement that there be a statement in the code to the effect that compliance with the code is necessary. Ms. b[%assmer noted that that section was already part of the code, and not a change. Ms. Nelson asked what the final decision had been regarding the height restrictions on canopy signs and lettering. Mr. Sepler said that where changes in the code that caused certain signs to become pre-existing legal non-conforming, those signs can remain. Other pre-existing, illegal signs may need to submit to a design review process. Mr. LeMaster asked for clarification on what had been decided on banters and flags. Ms. Nelson and Mr. Sepler noted that the term batmer had been stricken from the definition of streamers. Planning Commission Deliberations Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 May 22, 2008 Chair Emery noted an error in the existing code on page 23, section 1: there is a truncated sentence. This should read: "...signs attached to franchised vehicles, buses or taxis." Ms. Nelson again referred to page 8, line 7. She was concerned about the purpose and the need for a paragraph such as this to cover anything that was not specifically mentioned otherwise. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the paragraph should remain unchanged. Mr. Sepler offered rewritten text for E 3, page 20, lines l3 through 15: " ... 4. .9 Changeable Insert sign that advertises seafood sold within the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven is allowed, provided that a nzanagerrtent and maintenance plan prepared by the Port ofYort 1'ownsencl is approved by City Council.. ° Commissioners mere in agreement with this change. Mr. LeMaster cited the example of a property on San Juan Avenue where the designation "Red Dragon` hangs above a driveway onto the property. He asked if that lettered wooden structure would be considered a sign, and if so what code would apply to it. Mr. Sepler discussed mural signs and works of art. After a brief discussion about the known history and the possible interpretation that could be applied. it was agreed that it is not considered a sign if it does not include a business name. Ms. Nelson suggested that line 3 on page 1 a be eliminated: i.e. "Sandwich board signs must be taken in each night." There was consensus among the Commissioners on that point. Mr. Nelson suggested that the time restriction on Garage Sale Signs be eliminated. Chair Emery determined that there was not irmnediate consensus, and asked for a motion for discussion purposes. Mr. LeMaster moved that the frequencv ofgarage sale signage be non-specifrerl rather than specified as allowed only once in ]2 month period. Mr-. Emery seconded Mr. Ray asked if Mr. LeMaster would accept a friendly amendment allox~ing two or three sales per year: Mr. LeMaster accepted three per-year. The motion to allo~a~ up to three garage sales/signs per year was approved, all in favor. Ms. Nelson objected to the statement under 17.76.1 ~0 that reads: "11ie absence of such affixed label shall be evidence at first view that the sign has been installed in violation of this chapter.' Mr. Sepler agreed that the intention was to acknowledge the options of an affixed lobe] or a label displayed in another location approved by the City. Ms. Wassmer suggested that the entire sentence could be deleted without loss of meaning or operational efficacy, Commissioners agreed and the sentence was eliminated_ Ms. Nelson brought up the topic of'sun-setting fbr (sandwich board) signs. She asked For clarification as to why staff had advised aeainst sun-setting provisions for signs at previous meetings and were now in favor. Mr. Sepler explained that the actual number of all signs that would become non-compliant as a result of the proposed code changes had been unknown and could possibly have numbered in the hundreds. He said that since then he had consulted the City Attorney and determined that, if narrowly structured and applied to only to sandwich boards, sun- settingwould be defensible. After some discussion, the actual number of signs affected was estimated at about 4~ signs. Chair Emery requested a motion, for the purposes of discussion. Kristen Nelson said that she was not proposing a change, but wished to understand the shifr in position from the previous meeting to the current meeting. After additional discussion, Mr. LeMaster said that it was his understanding that, currently, sandwich board signs are not allowed outside the historical district, are non-conforming, and should be removed. He said he wished to understand what is being changed from the existing code. Mr. Sepler said that the ad hoc Sign Committee had recommended elimination of all P/arming Commission Meeting Page 9 of 7 May 22, 1008 sandwich board signs. The Planning Commission had recommended their preference to allow sandwich boards for businesses on side streets, and above and below street level on Water Street. fhe illegal signs in the historic district should be removed. The legal signs should be subject to the sun-setting (6-year) provision. There may be only one sandwich board per entrance, and only for non-street ]eve] businesses- He reviewed, as an example, the Public IIouse, which has a legal sandwich board sign, a wall sign, window and door sigms. If adopted as proposed, within six years they would need to retire their sandwich board silm. The intent as proposed is not to provide an additional means of advertising; it is to provide the side street and non street level business with some means of advertising on Water Street. Mr. Fry said he realized that some compromise is necessary, but believed six years was too long, considering [he cost of the signs. Others pointed out that the six year period was already in the code. They noted that the approximate cost was about $500 per sign. Mr. Ray noted that this compromise may not be perfect but, along with the kiosk program, would perhaps serve to move things in the right direction. Mr. LeMaster asked if Swain's shopping complex was included in the Historic District; Mr. Sepler confirmed that it is (to the Ferry Dock). 1'wo reasons given for retaining the six year time frame was to improve the chances for the ordinance to pass through City Council and to allow time for the Kiosk program to develop. Mr. Fry said he would accept the six year time allowance. Ms. Nelson questioned the wording of the paragraph 17.76200 r1 1. and the designation `non- conforming six years after .....". Mr. Sepler verified the difference between "legal non- conforming" and "non-conforming'; there were no additional wording changes. Since there were no further comments or questions, Mr. Rqv moned do ~~ecommend approval of zhe draft revisions ao the Sign Code as amended by the Planning Commission during this meeting, and to f rrdier direct staff to prepare Findings !o be signed by the Planning Commission Chair. The motion rr-as' seconded by Mr. Fr-y and approi~ed by a vote of 4/0/0 (4 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstaining. Mr-. Led~7aster explained that he had recused himself because of hrs interest as a dowmown business owner and holder of a sandn~ich board sign permit. There was a brief discussion about both the disclosure and recuse] processes and requirements. Mr. Sepler said any Commissioner may recuse himse]fihersclf, and is not required to give a reason. Ms. Nelson noted that although she is also a downtown business owner, she had not seen the need to recuse herself since she did not stand to gain from the Sign Code revisions. Chair Emery closed the Sign Code hearing at 8:19 PM_ Suzanne Wassmer left the meeting at this time. VII. NEW' BUSINESS Discussion: Uptown Commercial Design Standards /Uptown Parking Standards (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler distributed copies of a draft ordinance, EXI 15. Mr. Sepler reviewed the work of the Uptown Commercial Design Standards Committee and the Uptown Parking Standards Committee. He said they had framed a recommendation that had gone forward to the City Council and was presented in a joint workshop. Council had directed staff to proceed with Planning Commission process. 'this would normally be the next matter for the Planning Commission to address. However, since Council has adopted hrterim controls To deal with house size and form, that will becrome the next work project. However, he said there is an element of the Uptown project that can be resolved in short order. One result of the Uptown Parking study was the conclusion that the elimination of off-street parking for residential uses in the C-III zones P/arming Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 May 22, 2008 had not had a net benefit. That is, it allowed buildings to increase in size without any net decrease in cost and affordability. The original purpose was to promote greater density and more affordability. Mr. Emery added that the intentions had included inlill, and there had been more emphasis and anticipation on the downtown relaxation of parking; less attention had been paid to the uptown area. Mr. Sepler said the results uptown had been an unintended consequence. City Council then adopted an Interim control requiring one off street parking space for each residential unit in the C-III zone. After holding a Charette, the Parking Committee determined that there was a need for work on parking demand and management, which required a peak season inventory. He said that work would resume within a few weeks. Meanwhile, it would be possible to advance the Interim Control by making the off-street parking requirement permanent. He said that EXH 5 is the draft ordinance that would make the Interim standard a permanent standard, which is the recommendation of the parking committee. Section 1 clarifies review language that applies to C-111 zone portions of the uptown National Historic Landmark Historic District. He said if the Planning Commission agrees, this particular Interim Control can he made permanent before moving to the bulk and scale issues, which will require extended consideration. Bill LeMaster inquired if the meaning was '`one space per residential unit" only and Mr. Sepler confirmed that was the case. Mr. Fry asked for a description of the C-III areas. Mr. Sepler said that was the Lawrence Street frontage, where the 50 foot height limit applies. Ms. Nelson asked about the parking requirements for the other residential zones. He said that Cor R-I and R-17, two off street spaces are required, driveway or garage. F'or R-III, ] .5 ofl=street spaces are required for each unit; some discounts and minor credits can be applied for mixed use for on street spaces. He said the challenge is that people are not actually reducing the number of cars, as anticipated. Mr. Fry asked about the Fillmore Garage zoning. It was confirmed via the zoning map that the Filhnore Garage is R-III; the property next to it is C-Ill. Mr. Sepler noted that one off-street parking space is actually less than the fom~er requirement. Mr. Emery noted that the HAPN group wishes to see encouragement for the use of upper story Iloors as affordable housing. Mr. Sepler said that unless building is purposefully done as affordable housing, it will not be affordable. Mr. Emery said it was his wrderstanding via the affordable housing Taskforce that Congress may expand the HUD budget but not for new construction; it will be applied to saving existing HUD housing and encouraging revitalization projects. That is, obtaining funding for refurbishing an existing building will be considerably easier than for building new_ Mr. Sepler suggested that, if the Planning Commissioners were in agreement with the direction, he would schedule a public hearing for June 12. Chair Emery noted that there was consensus on this point. Mr. Sepler noted that he would not be present on June 12; the hearing would be handled by Judy Surber. He said they would also schedule presenters to speak about issues associated with historic structures and what prompted some of the htterim Controls. Commissioner Nelson brought up the topic of the third Town Meeting. The plans for the June 5 Town Meeting were briefly discussed. Packets will be sent out in advance. Planning Commissioners and other facilitators will meet briefly beforehand at 5:30 PM. Mr. LeMaster raised the question of whether the conversation at the Town Meeting may include building codes which now restrict alternative styles of building for safe and habitable homes. Mr. Sepler said there would likely be support for truly creative alternatives that make housing more affordable, but not for using affordability as an excuse for circumventing standards. He acknowledged the challenge of meeting health safety and aesthetic needs, as well as making housing affordable. Mr. Emery mentioned that HUll web site has a link to design standards for multi-family affordable housing complexes. Mr. LeMaster mentioned a town in northern California that had recently changed their zoning code regarding the types of structures that may be built. Mr. Emery noted that the many of the HUD recommendations were also Green practices. Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 May 22, 2008 V1I1. UPCOMING MEETINGS June 12: Public Hearing-Proposed Uptown Commercial Parking Standards. (This meeting was subsequently postponed until June 26.) June 26: Workshop -Uptown Corrnnercial Design Standards and Ileight, Bulk and Scale Issues. (This meeting was subsequently rescheduled until a date in July to be determined.) IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved that Lhe meeting be adjourned,' the rnot(on was seconded by Mr. LeMasder. Chair Emery adjourned the meeting a1 8: 38 YM. i`1~2 Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 May 2Z, 2008