Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101107• CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER I I, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 11, 2007 EXH 2. Ad Hoc Sign Code Review Committee, Committee Report and Recommendations to CDLU of the City Council, October 4, 2007 (Packet includes EXH. 2A and 2B below) EXH 2A. Ad Hoc Sign Committee Recommendation: Planning Commission Worksheet EXH 2B. Four existing Signs that Exceed the I7-foot Height Limit in C-II (Summary, Correspondence and Photographs) I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Liesl Slabaugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Kristen Nelson, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Absent: Julian Ray Guests: City Councilor George Randels was also in attendance. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Steve Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda, and Jerry Fry seconded, with all in favor. The agenda was approved, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 27, 2007 -deferred until the following meeting. Bill LeMaster asked for clarification on the Internet GIS portal mentioned at the previous meeting. He asked if Mr. Sepler would be willing to share the ROI information. Rick Sepler explained that Leonard Yarberry is responsible for that system and for preparing the CTED grant application, which was due today, October 11. He noted that if it is not successful, it could be pursued, perhaps with a more in depth analysis and cost/benefit study. That would be at the direction of City Council, possibly based on staff recommendation. He added that any citizen is free to suggest an item for City Council to consider. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None P/arming Commission Page 1 of 9 October 11, 2007 • VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee: Process, Issues And Anticipated Recommendations Rick Sepler, Planning Director Materials had been mailed previously. Mr. Sepler also had extra copies on hand. He suggested that Commissioners follow the matrix (EXH. 2A) as he discussed each item. He said the CDLU, two days previously, reviewed the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee and chose to forward thatrecommendation to the Planning Commission, along with certain points that Mr. Sepler had been directed to raise. He said, however, that since the initiator of those points, Councilor Randels, was present, it maybe best to alter the usual process. He suggested that all should walk through each of the matrix items, and that Councilor Randels speak to those points at the appropriate times. The Commissioners agreed with this process. He said the other process issue is that the recommendation will also be provided to City Council and it is now properly charged to the Planning Commission to review these recommendations and work with staff to develop a proposed ordinance. Mr. Sepler also noted that in response the request for other codes as examples, Mr-Sepler had sent the web links, so that Commissioners could access them directly. He said he had limited the references to Washington State jurisdictions that are operating under the same constitutional and other constraints. Item 1 -- George Unterseher asked if Future Construction signs could be added to this category. • Mr. Sepler said that currently signs are not allowed in the right of way, except for sandwich board signs in the historic district. (Realtor signs must be on private property, although many are not.) Section 17.76.070 allows directional informational signs and could be used to accommodate the signs addressed here. John Watts has cautioned about allowing some things in the right of way but not others. He may attend a future Commission meeting to discuss not allowing anything in the right of way. The questions are: Is a signage plan appropriate? What signs should be included? What is the spirit and intent of such a plan? What standards should be included or should it be deferred to the Special Event process? Steve Emery asked if events located at Fort Worden or the Fairgrounds are included. Mr. Sepler said he assumes events such as the Farmer's Market were the focus, not an entity advertising a sale of some kind. Mr. Unterseher said that this must cover all signs, and not allow a series of exceptions. He added that having read the document three times, he had not been able to see the goal and direction clearly. He said the complex set of specific do's and don'ts is confusing, especially without an introductory paragraph explaining the rationale. He also stated that the particular signs identified as being illegal, such as the Safeway and QFC signs, are perfectly legitimate in his opinion. Chair Slabaugh asked if Mr. Unterseher was referring to the intent and purpose section at the beginning of the Sign code. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler pointed out that the task assigned by City Council was limited and not directed at a total revision of the Sign Code. The challenge is to pursue those possible modifications without reviewing and rewriting the entire sign strategy. Kristen Nelson pointed out the paragraph on page 3 of the sign committee report, which she found to be clear and to the point in stating the recommendation applies to non-profit reoccurring events. Mr. Unterseher restated his dissatisfaction that the entire sign problem was not being addressed. He said that the problem is the escalation of the • ugly clutter, not the large grocery store building signs and the like. There was further discussion about what the real problem about signage is. Planning Commission Page 2 of 9 October 11, 2007 • Steve Emery then pointed out that item 13, not item I, was concerned with large building signs, so that discussion should be held until the proper time. He made an additional suggestion related to item 1 that would allow insertable slats or shingles identifying events to be inserted in directional signs to major city destinations, such as Fort Worden. He also favored allowing the Farmer's Market to have permanent directional signs indicating the usual event times, which would replace the temporary use of sandwich board signs. He said he wished to support that type of concept and also the use of a kiosk type sign board at key locations such as Fort Worden or the Uptown area. He saw this as a way to be supportive and helpful, rather than just saying "no" to sandwich boards and flimsy posted leaflets and fliers. Chair Slabaugh interposed the question of process, and whether the commissioners wished to step through the list or take the time for the broader philosophical discussions. Harnett Capron was in support of staying on task, stating the charge was not to rewrite the entire sign code. Jerry Fry said he thought that at least a review of the overall intent and purpose was needed before going on to the specific items. Bill LeMaster agreed to a brief review of purpose, to then focus on the 13 items; he also wished to have the specific code text as a reference during discussion. He noted that enforcement was probably a Large part of the problem. Rick Sepler summarized the background of the current sign code, noting that sign code is unique. The challenge was/is finding the balance between the needs of businesses and maintaining community character. In the historic district, this must be tempered with great concerns about the character of the area, the National Landmark designation, and the risk of unregulated signage blocking or obscuring building architecture. The process was difficult and time consuming. Elsewhere in town, the issues were somewhat less serious; pole signs were problematic. The current code reflects the compromises and tradeoffs. He noted that the Gateway area allows the • less obtrusive monument signs in the right of way. He referred to Section 17.76.01 OC which discusses that balance in the historic district. George Unterseher asked for definitions of monument and pole signs. Mr. Sepler explained the variations signs that are elevated by mounting on top of poles. Monument signs are displayed very close to the ground. Mr. Unterseher discussed the terminology employed by the sign industry and contrasted architectural and commercial signage. He suggested that, for better description and understanding, the industry terminology should be employed. Chair S noted that definitions could be covered under item 10, definitions. Mr. Sepler recalled that the industry definitions had been included, but are found in the definitions section, not in the Sign Code chapter. Returning to item 1, Commissioners discussed Steve's kiosk concept suggestion as related to temporary signage. Jerry Fry noted that based on his reading, kiosks work best as walking signs and questioned how effective they would be in all parts of town. Kristen Nelson added that everything within the downtown area is within a few blocks, so developing an effective kiosk plan for the more sprawling areas would be quite different and probably not workable. Bill LeMaster said that if sign boards are disallowed anywhere, then they should be disallowed everywhere. He disagreed with the recommendation and suggested there be "no temporary uses". Alice King asked for clarification on kiosk based temporary signage, which was explained by Ms. S as slide in/slide out slats. She said she did not see that as a good solution for temporary signs. Mr. Unterseher noted the complexity of the signage issues. He argued that the City should take responsibility for improving the directional signage to major locations such as Fort Worden, not attempt to accommodate transient event signs on the path to that location. . When asked for his opinion on the item 1 recommendation, he restated his preference for simplifying all the signage in town. P/arming Commission Page 3 of 9 October Il, 2007 . Mr. Sepler restated the narrow issue: should we allow signs related to one-time or recurring non- profit events in the right of way, provided that a sign plan is submitted and approved. Secondly, what are the criteria for doing so? Mr. Unterseher said he would vote no. He also noted that the city should be able to place temporary signs to regulate traffic or parking for such events. Ms. Slabaugh said she thought the temporary signs should be allowed, and Ms. King agreed. She noted that signs would only be up for a maximum of 48 hours. They must obtain a permit and comply with the requirements. Ms. Slabaugh said she saw it as a common sense decision. She noted that establishing the criteria for the permits was a bit more difficult. Ms. Nelson said she supported the recommendation, with the proviso that non-compliance with timely, proper posting and removal of signs should result in revocation of the permit. Harriet Capron acknowledged the hard work of the 18 member sign committee and said she supported their recommendation. Mr. Emery said he was also in favor. Chair Slabaugh asked if a vote on each item was needed. Mr. Sepler said that if the entire Commission was not in favor of a particular recommendation, then he would omit it from the draft proposed ordinance. Otherwise, he will include the item in the draft. He also acknowledged Mr. LeMaster's point about needing to have the current code in hand. Item 2. Rick Sepler referred everyone to the monument and other photos that had been included in the packets and these were reviewed by all. There was further discussion about the restrictions on square footage of signs in relation to • building sites. Mr. Sepler explained that the current code specifies a method of determining maximum size for multiple building signs: measure the primary street frontage of the building and gives a minimum of 100 square feet. If the building is much longer, more signage is allowed; i.e. it grows proportionately. Monument signage is figured differently. Specific sign photos (ReMax, Safeway, and others) were examined. The issue was described as: should the incentive for multiple tenant signs be retained and is ] 2 feet too large. Specifics of right of way restrictions were mentioned and need to be checked further. filso, is the measurement of the six foot height measured from ground level or other, considering landscaping and foliage etc? Jerry Fry said he did not have a problem with any of the four signs that are now considered illegal. He added that the problem is the complexity of the language and the need for interpretation. He would support revising the language while retaining the current maximums for the time being. Ms. Slabaugh noted that the tact of having a specific 6 foot maximum everywhere had the advantage of simplicity but lacked flexibility. Mr. Sepler said he would work on the language and also provide in advance good comparison photos that clearly show the scale. Further discussion is needed. Item 3 - Mr. Sepler pointed out that there is confusion in the code about internally illuminated signs and whether a backlit can sign is appropriate. He said the real issue is the casket of light offsite. He said some communities do not allow internally lit signs; all signs must be externally illuminated. The reason is that an external light source can be shielded and directed, thereby eliminating spill-over. He suggested that Commissioners inspect specific instances in the downtown and compare different types of lighting for themselves. One recommendation was to find some way of regulating the amount of power of a can sign, i.e. the candle power, lumens or wattage. Can light pollution be minimized by controlling the amount of power. George Unterseher said thai externally illuminated can be more objectionable than the internally P/arming Commission Page 4 of 9 October 11, 2007 illuminated. He added that there is one other internal type, those with obscure background and internally lit letters, which he does not find objectionable. Serry Fry and Steve Emery clarified that externally lit means down lit signs. Mr. Emery said he supported Mr. Unterseher's point that standard definitions be employed because, as written, the section on lighting is the most confusing. Mr. Fry noted that the industry has changed greatly in the last 20 years. Mr. Randels noted that candles, lumens or wattage as a standard is problematic because of evolving new technology such as LEDs etc. Mr. Sepler said that specific to the historic downtown, the HPC has promulgated guidelines about neon, which is considered historic. He noted also that Port Townsend does not allow for any sort of flashing or moveable signs, or changeable measurement. After a brief discussion, Chair Slabaugh said that she would support the goal of developing performance standards to deal with light pollution. Mr. Sepler said there appear to be ways to do so, per the examples in the codes from other jurisdictions. There was fiirther discussion about the need for very clear definitions, such as halo and internally illuminated. There was acknowledgement that prohibitions on certain types of signage may be outdated in a very short time. The bottom line was to clarify the definitions, to remove the ambiguity arising from various interpretations, and to establish that the purpose is to minimize off site light pollution, and set performance standards. Also avoid a means of measurement that is technologically limiting or limited. Mr. Fry reiterated Mr. Unterseher suggestion to put the onus on the sign maker to design/implement the desired goals. Mr. Sepler brought up a recent instance of an ATM machine which neighbors complained was too brightly lit, while state RCWs require a certain level of light. Ms. Nelson said that she could not locate the neon sign ordinance in the materials and Mr. Sepler • said he would make certain that was forwarded. Mr. Sepler then summarized the neon sign background. In response to a question from Mr. Unterseher about regulation of signs within buildings, Mr. Sepler said there were guidelines applied as to the number of inches into the interior, for example signage in a window or just behind the window of a store front. Currently, neon is not considered to be internally lit, per the Port Townsend definitions. Mr. Sepler said he would recommend postponing discussion of size until the definition of "internally lit" has been reworked. Item 4 -- Mr. Sepler discussed the regulations related to large buildings and the needs of schools and government buildings for having multiple signs for informational purposes. The recommendation is to revise the code to allow more than one 16 square foot sign; there would be one per street frontage. He clarified that the code does not allow advertising unless the predominance of the business or organization is based on the sale of the product named on the sign. Mr. Randels noted that government/school buildings will have an identifiable primary frontage. He suggested that one large sign could be allowed on the primary side (of their choice) and smaller signs can be allowed for the other secondary frontages. Mr. Sepler said that Mountain View School, as an example, wished to have a sign board that could be seen from the two primary frontages. The recommendation of the sign committee was to retain the one reader board limit, and allow a secondary of 12 square feet. The Commissioners would change that to • 16,12,12,12. P/arming Commission Page 5 of 9 October i I, 2007 . Item 5 - Mr. Sepler repeated what he had said at the previous meeting. The sign committee had stated that all the sign code work would be for naught unless the City takes the necessary steps regarding enforcement. Enforcement was considered the key to this signage issue. The issues raised regarding the sandwich board signs are a case in point. Based on the inventory previously discussed, 60% of the sandwich board signs are not allowed. They are not counting the signs in Upper Sims Way or the sign for the Lavender Field. The issue raised originally was that sidewalks were obstructed by the numbers of signs. The original purpose of the signs was to allow advertising of businesses that were not on Water Street and not in the district per se. For example, they were to inform visitors of Point Hudson or Uptown businesses. In practice, sandwich boards have proliferated in the absence of enforcement, resulting in the current state. Mr. Sepler noted that of the illegal signs, about 40 or 50% could be permitted, if the agreement of the property owner could be obtained. In terms of placement, three signs are allowed on a street perpendicular to Water Street. In many of the locations, the allotted numbers are already used up. Therefore the sign committee considered having all signs removed, and they considered amortization, i.e. allowing signs until their "useful life" expired. (However, he cited a recent court case in which an amortization arrangement was challenged successfully because a business owner was not given sufficient time to recoup the cost of a sign. He noted that here we are taking about signs in the right of way, not on private property.) A number of sign committee members believed that those who had obtained permits and followed the rules should be allowed to retain their signs. As such, the recommendations provides that legal signs would become pre-existing legal non-conforming and a kiosk program would be created as a potential incentive for retiring the sign expeditiously for little or less expense. He mentioned again the property owner who has volunteered to pay for the first kiosk. This means that some illegal signs would have the opportunity to become legal by obtaining permits in the interim between now and when signs are removed. The questions are "Should sandwich boards be allowed?" and if so, "Which ones, pre-existing legal ones only or also those which file and obtain permits before Council acts on this further?" The next question is "For whom? Should it be for those who are just off Water Street only, or for Point Hudson and Uptown, or for those who are on upstairs locations, i~ot at street level?" Mr. Unterseher asked about the current use of stickers for signs, which are a visual means of showing that a sign is approved and legal. Mr. Sepler mentioned the one in the Museum that maybe the only one currently being displayed. Ms. King said that this issue must be discussed in tandem with the kiosk design and implementation plans. She said the sandwich signs cannot just be removed without that plan, and that possibly enforcement has to wait until that is done. Mr. Unterseher said he agreed except that illegal signs should be removed immediately. Mr. Randels, recalling the statements of Sheila Westerman about needing to know the nature of the problem, said that he did not think the problem was as great as it appears if, and only if, the illegal signs are addressed. This would include all the duplicates and all those that had not been through the permitting process. The problem would then be substantially eliminated. He said that there seemed to be flaws in the original rules. He said that until recently he had understood that the rules were designed to support upper story businesses and off Water Street businesses in advertising their presence. However, he learned that that was not the case. The second flaw is allowing property owners veto power over what may be placed on the public right of way in front of their building. Mr. Randels found that to be patently unreasonable. He said those two flaws ought to be addressed. P/arming Commission Page 6 of 9 October 11, 2007 . He also questioned why, if neon is historical, aren't sandwich boards historical, too? He said that he would like to ask the HPC to examine that question. He said, in addition, that he was concerned that the kiosk proposal will go too far in prettifying this town, and that sandwich boards should remain as part of the funk or charm of Port Townsend. Mr. Unterseher asked, however, at what point the number of signs would be stopped. There was a brief discussion about the current limits on number of signboards and restrictions on placement. Mr. Randels said that if there was a return to the original purpose of the rules and elimination of the veto, as well as the illegal signs, that the problem would be manageable. He also said that he agreed with Ms. King that the Kiosk idea should be considered in concert with the enforcement, but that would not be fully developed very soon. He noted that the CDLU had discussed bifurcation of enforcement in the big picture from the specifics of the sign ordinance in one case and code enforcement related to land use and other issues. In the interim, there should be a move forward with enforcement of the existing code, while it is being amended. He said he did not agree with putting enforcement on hold pending changes being considered. Regarding sandwich boards, he suggested that the minor changes mentioned be tried for a year or two and evaluate how it works. This would give the kiosk proponents time to fully develop a program proposal. Chair Slabaugh said she agreed with the changes Mr. Randels had suggested, and that the sandwich boards are historic, and that the kiosk scheme could be done in tandem. Mr. Emery asked if there was support for allowing new sandwich boards, if they meet requirements. Mr. Randels and Ms. Slabaugh said that was their intent -which does differ from the sign committee recommendation. Ms. Nelson noted that she does have a conflict of interest but wished to make a comment. She • said that she personally disliked the kiosk idea, found them unattractive and would not like to see them implemented. She also said that allowing some businesses to have sandwich boards and not others would be unfair. All sandwich boards should go through the permitting process but she also thought they should be maintained and not allowed to deteriorate. She thought that the number should be limited in some way. Mr. Sepler said one question was not yet addressed: Should existing perniitted signs for street level Water Street businesses be allowed to remain, should they be amortized/sunsetted or should they be removed? The Museum, which does have a sticker, was cited as an example. Mr. Randels said that in a scheme that is an alternative to kiosks, which is his goal, a sunset proviso is needed. And no new signs would be allowed for Water Street ground floor businesses. Regarding the property owner veto, Ms. Nelson noted that the property owners are responsible for cleaning and maintaining the sidewalk area. Mr. Emery said that he did not believe the property owner could be compelled to accept an unwanted sign for another business. Mr. Randels said the sidewalk was right of way, not technically owned by the building owner. Ms. Nelson responded that it was unfair to ask a restaurant owner to accept signs for other restaurants but not have one of its own, for example. Mr. Randels said the fall back position would be to have an arbiter. Ms. Slabaugh said it was better to ask for permission. .Noting the time, Chair Slabaugh asked for Commissioners' preferences as to continuing the discussion on this item, moving on to the next item or agreeing on an adjournment time. Mr. Sepler said he could return on November 8 with additional materials. Ms. Capron said that was her preference and she would rather not rush through the other items. There was a review of the • schedule. Mr. Sepler said he would return to discuss portions of the draft ordinance not previously covered on October 25, and that the draft was not due until December 11. The P/arming Commission Page 7 of 9 October 11, 2007 • property owners' veto will be left in for further discussion. A possible sidebar will be consideration of any ways to avoid having competing signage placed in close proximity. Mr. Unterseher noted that commercial signage is often leased and that would be a sunset issue to address, not with regard to sandwich board signs but possibly with the large non-conforming signs mentioned earlier. Mr. Emery asked Mr. Sepler if he could research the reason that property owner vetoes and the 17 foot limit had been included in the code. Mr. Sepler said the veto provision had been raised in the public hearings at the time the sandwich board code had been considered. With regard to sign height, that was a means to prevent signs from projecting up into the cornice line of a two story building. Mr. Emery noted that in correspondence about QFC, the sign designer had argued that the code doss not state that the sign must be sited at 17 feet. Rather, it must be in a certain position in relation to the roof line. However, the City Council did not accept that argument. Mr. Sepler said he would present more information at a later meeting. Enforcement Discussion - Mr. Sepler explained that an ordinance was presented to Council that would change the nature ofnon-compliance in the sense that a citation could be issued, with fines. A number of issues came out of the discussion including determining what is non- compliant. The policy with regard to land use had been to respond on an as needed basis, i.e. in response to complaints. For signage violations, the business would be told if the violation was noticed by staff. The policy seemed to have been softened under a previous Council. Mr. Sepler said that the institutional norm shifted from responding to complaints or obvious violations to not addressing them. However, he said all of the members of the present Council wish to see the code enforced. Mr. LeMaster asked how the community would be notified of a change in policy related to enforcement. He said he was concerned that there be appropriate warning through letters, articles in the newspapers, or some other means. Ms. Nelson pointed out that the sign committee recommendation is focused on an ongoing procedure, e.g. giving 24 hours notice to remove a sign, rather than the type of communication needed to prepare people for a poiicy change. Mr. Sepler said the committee had asked for the resources to enforce the code strictly. He said there was discussion about the process for accomplishing the transition. He said that in other communities, typically there is notice, possibly in person, that informs the business owner of the problem, their options for remedying the situation, and the follow up that they should expect. Mr. LeMaster said that there should be general publicity several months in advance that informs everyone of what is planned, with an explanation of background and the rationale for the change in enforcement. Councilor Randels said he agreed with that point. He added that no one can predict what a legislative body will do. He noted that the public meeting notices, articles in the press and in the monthly utility bill insert can all be part of such communication. Ms. Nelson asked how often the HPC (Historical Preservation Committee) meets, and was told that it meets about twice per month. She suggested a general public notice and then a letter to all those with non-compliant signs stating the procedure and a reasonable time line to apply for proper permits. She described the existing multi-step process, noting that it can take a fair amount of time to complete. Mr. Randels said his impression was that the sign committee did not seem disposed to give special considerations or accommodations to those with illegal signs. That is, they could have taken those steps and chose not to. It was agreed that neither the sign committee nor the Planning Commission wished to penalize those who had followed the rules by P/arming Commission Page 8 of 9 October 1 i, 2007 • making exceptions. However, an applicant is vested to the rules in place at the time of application. Mr. LeMaster noted that the enforcement issue is broader than the sandwich board signs. He said there could be more angst outside the historical district than within it. He strongly encouraged broad publicity and advanced notice of the possible changes. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved to adjourn and Ms. Capron seconded, which was approved all in favor. Chair Slabaugh adjourned the meeting at 9:10 PM. 1~-~- Gail ernhard, Recorder • • P/arming Commission Page 9 of 9 October 11, 2007