Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092707• CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -September 27, 2007 EXH 2. R. Sepler, Staff Memo: Sign Code Revision -Background and Key Issues, September 27, 2007 EXH 3. Packet of article reproductions regarding signage and sign codes EXH 4. R. Sepler and S. Wassmer, Staff Memo: Sandwich Board Signage in the Downtown Commercial Historic District, July 26, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Liesl Slabaugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL and INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER KRISTEN NELSON A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Alice King, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Bill LeMaster arrived at 7:28 PM. • Chair Slabaugh introduced Christine Nelson, new Planning Commissioner. She invited Ms. Nelson to share a bit of her background and what brought her to the Planning Commission. Ms. Nelson recapped her background in food service/restaurants. She said she had grown up in Port Townsend, then moved away to attend college and travel. She earned a degree in Finance and Economics from the University of Washington. Upon her return to Port Townsend, she took on a contract with the State Parks to manage food services, and spent about six years working for six months and traveling for six months of each year. She owned and operated Sirens, the Fountain and Jordini's in varying capacities for about seven years until last year when she sold all three businesses. She said she thoroughly enjoyed being on the parking committee, and through that and other contacts, she became interested in applying for the Planning Commission. All Commissioners introduced themselves, gave brief background information and welcomed Ms. Nelson to the Planning Commission. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA The agenda was approved, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 13, 2007: Mr. Ray moved and Mr. Emery seconded for approval of the minutes as written. The minutes of September 13, 2007 were approved as written, all in favor. Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7 September 27, 2007 • V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Schedule: Rick Sepler provided a brief history of the Code Amendments process for the benefit of new member Chris Nelson. He said there were a number of minor corrections identified by the staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. While doing that, some minor errors in Home Occupation and Child Care broadened the discussion to the point of actually reworking those two chapters. Since both are very significant, it was seen as appropriate to develop new schemes to address these issues. He said the next steps, based on the Planning Commission's direction, are to prepare a draft ordinance, which will be coming back to the Planning Commission for a hearing on November 8. The SEPA process and notice will be done before that. On October 25, there will be a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. On October 11, there will be a work session on a draft Sign Code ordinance. He said the Comp Plan amendments are about site specific zoning changes. He recalled that the docket had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council earlier in the year. Mr. Unterseher asked if a replacement for Roger Lizut as the Planning Commission representative was needed on the Sign Code committee, and was informed that Steve Emery had been filling in and attended the last meeting. A report from Mr. Sepler regarding a possible web portal application was deferred until the end of New Business. • VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee: Process, Issues And Anticipated Recommendations Rick Sepler said he would walk through the process to date, highlighting key issues and what will be coming forth. He said that he would have liked to have the Sign committee recommendations for this meeting. However, the results of the final meeting held the previous week were still undergoing review of the revisions before being forwarded to the CDLU committee and the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the packets had been prepared in anticipation of having those revisions by the time of this meeting. Mr. Sepler noted that typically planners expect any attempts to make revisions, minor or major, to the Sign Code to be a difficult and complex undertaking. He said that because they see signage as critical to attracting customers, there is no shortage of strong emotion among business owners/operators regarding this subject. Most sign codes, once adopted, are not touched very much thereafter. He recalled that he had worked for the City in 1991 when the Sign Code was adopted, and had attended the "lively" meetings. He said the existing sign code had been very basic, without much detail. There was a proliferation of pole signs, moving signs and over-sized signs. Many were not consistent with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The 1991 revision process was long and somewhat caustic, although it did result in some successes. The pole signs were eliminated/sunsetted. However, a number of issues have arisen over time related to new technology as well as the basic sign code. One premise is that the bigger the building, the more signage should be allowed. Ciry Council had received a number of concerns about sighs, especially about the proliferation of sandwich board signs which interfere with sidewalk traffic. An ad hoc Sign Code committee was Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 September 27, 2007 . formed in Niay 2007, comprised of 15 members plus staff, and having broad representation. The committee was chaired by City Councilor Michelle Sandoval, staffed by Rick Sepler and Suzanne Wassmer, and assisted by Alison Danner, summer engineering intern. The role of the ad hoc committee was policy-oriented: to decide if the sign code needed to be revised, and if so, provide policy guidance. He noted that the process was intended to be a precursor to the Planning Commissior. process, not circumvention, and that it would produce a balanced recommendation from a broad base of interests. The recommendations are not binding but should be given credence. The Planning Commission recommendation will go forward to public hearing and on to City Council for potential adoption. The role of the Planning Commission is to take the policy direction and to develop proposed regulations. Procedurally, the CDLU receives the recommendation on October 9, refers it to City Council for information purposes only, and is then expected to direct it to the Planning Commission at that time. Mr. Sepler then provided an overview of the issues as outlined in the staff memo (EXH. 2), followed by more detailed discussion of each. He said he anticipated a number of meetings to address the range of issues. [Bill LeMaster arrived at 7:28 PM.] Kristen Nelson requested a copy of the Sign Code and was referred to the PTMC section of the Planning Commission Handbook, which has recently been updated. The first four issues were the basic ones brought to the attention of City Council by citizens and staff. Issues 5 and 6 were added by City Council for the Sign Committee to investigate. Issues 7 through 13 were identified and discussed by the Sign Committee during their meetings. • 1. Signs for Temporary Usage -This includes recurring temporary uses, such as the Farmer's Market. Currently, temporary signs are allowed for up to 15 days within a calendar year. This has worked well for special events and special sales, for example. However, a better solution is needed for non-profits and playhouses etc. that have regular recurring events. Guidance is needed on how, where, when, and size criteria for such uses. 2. Monument Signs Allowances - Mr. Sepler described the discrepancies. The original notion (1991) was to incentivize consolidated signage for large buildings over many individual small signs. However, the descriptions of multi-tenant, multi-business signs and the bonus schemes are complex and difficult to administer. The result has been the erection of much larger, taller signs than desired. The committee is in favor of revising language and of eliminating the incentive, so that such signs are more on par with other signage. 3. Update of Technology Terminology for `internally lit" signs -Technical terms associated with this issue are not well defined in the code. The City has had to rely on an administrative determination, i.e. that backlit signs are not internally illuminated. The committee and staff agree that clarification is required, and that the relationship to light pollution must also be considered. The preference is for direct lighting, with a specified maximum on lumens, that is shielded to minimize spillover. One challenge is the lack of equipment to measure the "spillover light". Mr. Ray added that neon signs will need to be specifically addressed, in collaboration with the HPC. Mr. Unterseher suggested that the Belleview sign code be consulted, if that has not already been . done. Mr. Ray added that perhaps investigating sign codes from other historically oriented communities would be helpful. Mr. Sepler said that he would provide such reference materials. Mr. Fry asked about rules for large LED boards. Mr. Sepler said they are addressed and are Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 September 17, 2007 • currently limited to temperature and date/time displays. Flashing signs are not allowed. Several other cities such as Santa Fe and Leavenworth were mentioned as good examples. Mr. Unterseher pointed out that a well designed sign informs, directs and/or restricts. signage becomes self-defeating when, collectively, it over powers the visual landscape because of the competition for the observer's attention. Mr. Ray added that the overall process has an educational component that prepares people for what to look for, such as the same style, colors, and size of signs for particular purposes. Mr. Emery added that directional signage needs are changing with the advent of web services such as MapQuest. Mr. Sepler added that studies have shown that without proper regulation, sign competition will result in sensory overload and complete ineffectiveness to meet the purposes of the business and public interest. Mr. LeMaster asked for an example of undesirable signage or an area of sign blight. Mr. Sepler cited the 12 or 13 signs posted along the grass at the Boat Haven, some of which are for products sold downtown. Mr. LeMaster responded that since sandwich board signs require permits, that situation is the result of poor enforcement. The discussion led to item 13, existing illegal signage. Mr. Sepler listed the illegal signage at Safeway, Aladdin Hotel, QFC and HarborSide which is actually a part of item 1."s. He explained that the Safeway sign permit had been issued in error by the City in 1992. The Harbor Side and Aladdin signs had been overlooked in the 1991 inventory. The QFC sign permit was denied but erected anyway and remains on the building. The ad hoc Sign Committee has recommended some compromise in the first three instances, but not for the QFC signage. Mr. Sepler added that the Strait Flooring Sign had not been permitted before it was erected, and that that the owners have now removed it at the City's request until they can bring it into compliance. • 4. Schools, Churches and Government Buildings -- The Sign Committee advised that additional allowances be made for large, multi-function buildings to clarify special entrances or to publicize pending events. 5. Sandwich Board Signs - A recent inventory has been completed by a summer intern and compared to permits to determine which instances are illegal. More than half are illegal. Mr. Sepler pointed out that those in compliance are being penalized by the proliferation. There is agreement that permitted sandwich boards should be able to remain until the business goes away or replaces the boards with other signage. There is also a desire to provide a Kiosk incentive to retire these sign boards. Mr. Sepler reviewed the current sandwich board regulations and confirmed that the crowding of sidewalks is due mainly to the excessive number of signs, most of which are illegal. 6. Enforcement -- Mr. Sepler noted that the Sign Committee had found lack of enforcement, rather than shortcomings of the sign code, to be the most significant issue. They would not recommend that further resources be applied to code changes unless the enforcement problem is resolved. Rick Sepler added that the possibility of training police reserve personnel to do this type of enforcement is under discussion. He pointed out the anecdotal material in the handouts which conveys the difficulty of sign code enforcement. He noted that the transition from no enforcement to effective enforcement will include the crucial first six months of more intense work and use of resources. Beyond that he expects about one week per month for the second six months, dropping to one day per month thereafter. Ms. Nelson suggested that the business license process should include an informative, easy to • read leaflet that includes signage rules and permitting process. They should also be able to determine whether a business already has all necessary sign permits. She noted that confusion often arises because new business owners receive incomplete or erroneous information from P/arming Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7 September 27, 2007 . others in town, or because the official City requirements are obscure or hard to find. The Sign Committee had also made this suggestion, as well as to Iink the DSD computerized permit system with the business license application and the like. Better use of web technology to provide information and application services online was again mentioned in this context. Mr. Ray noted that making the process easy for a business at the beginning is so much better than trying to undo an illegal situation later. Mr. Unterseher added that the educational component was also essential and more cost effective. Mr. Le Master asked for an estimate of the additional cost the City would incur to provide enforcement. Mr. Sepler said that the City does not seek to self-fund enforcement with fines, but that hopefully at least half of the costs could be recovered. Ms. Nelson recalled that in the past, she and other business owners had received letters from the former Planning Director, Jeff Randall, regarding non-conforming signs. She said that instructions were provided as to how to remedy the situation, which she followed and that everything had turned out well. She said she had not realized before that that one of her several signs was not in compliance. She assumed that if she had not responded promptly, the City would have escalated the matter to the next level of a personal visit or something more forceful. Mr. Sepler said that three months after that initiative, Mr. Randall was instructed by City Council to ignore enforcement. All agreed that the initial concerted effort, once made, would be maintainable as long as there was a continuous monitoring and enforcement process, and the situation was not allowed to revert to pre-enforcement state. Commissioners advised that providing tools and a reasonable warning well in advance would be prudent. Mr. Fry advised that this type of action should be taken in anon-election year. • 7. Lesser Standards needed for Mixed Use signage -The ad hoc Sign Committee raised this issue. Mixed use (M/U) is zoned in five areas of the community. The sign code allows C-II zoning signage. However, since M/LJ is for small scale businesses and pedestrian oriented traffic, the committee suggested a lessening of standards for these areas. 8. Kiosk program -This deals with the development of a Kiosk program for certain key areas of the City. The original 1991 code states that up to three sign kiosks can be constructed for consolidated signage downtown, although this approach has not been implemented. The committee found several uses and advantages for this method, and supports its implementation. There is a preliminary Kiosk design that incorporates the railing design. A downtown business owner has offered to pay for the first one, as a model. Mr. Sepler noted that it is not the Planning Commission's role to design kiosks, but to amend the code to better accommodate this solution. Mr. Unterseher raised the adjunct idea of the Chamber of Commerce providing informative brochures /leaflets that can be picked up at key locations, providing more information than can be displayed on the Kiosk. 9. Minor Code Revisions for increased Sign Code clarity -These specific corrections are mostly errors in the existing text which were noticed in the course of reviewing the code provisions and language. 10. Consolidation of Signage related Definitions into the Sign Code Chapter -Relevant definitions that are now embedded elsewhere in the Code should be consolidated in the specific Sign Code chapter, unless they are widely used throughout the whole PTMC. • 11. Need for Varying Standards for different Districts and/or Sub-districts -Concern was raised that the rules for certain areas, e.g. SR-20, may need to be different than downtown. Factors to be considered are the speed of traffic and the size of letters, etc. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 September 27, 2007 • 12. Port of Port Townsend Consolidated Seafood Signage -This refers to a replacement of sandwich board signs by an organized program or presentation. There is no objection to the sale of freshly caught seafood off the boats, etc. However, having a series ofhand-lettered signs is unsightly. The idea is to provide one attractive posting area that is easily updated and convenient for potential customers. There remain issues to be resolved including directing customers to the specific boat locations. 13. Address certain pre-existing Signs that exceed the l 7-foot height limit -There are several illegal signs where resolution had been placed on hold pending the outcome of this sign code update effort. This issue was discussed previously under item 3. Mr. Sepler noted that depending on the decisions of the Commission, it may be possible to make some accommodation for certain of the out of compliance situations, or it may be necessary to adjust the code. George Unterseher asked if the special events issues of huge balloons, rubber ducks and other temporarily erected attention getting devices were covered. Mr. Emery and Mr. Sepler noted that such devices were already prohibited. Roles: Mr. Sepler then reviewed the role of the Planning Commission, and noted that the Commission may wish to suggest changes or corollary amendments. City Council, of course, has that same option with regard to the recommendations they receive from the ad hoc Sign Committee and the Planning Commission. Mr. Sepler said that based on the meeting's discussion, he would draft a document encompassing each of these points. It will show what the Sign Committee recommended with a menu of • approaches to choose from. That will serve as the basis for discussion at the follow up meeting. He will also try to provide the code samples from other cities. Ms. Capron requested that any documents provided be reduced to the 8.5 x 11 inch paper, rather than larger legal or 11 x 14 inch size, and that any meeting documents be provided somewhat in advance of the meeting. Directional Signage: Commissioner Fry brought up two problems related to the lack of signs. One is the problem of motor homes attempting to get to Fort Worden and becoming lost at the base of Morgan Hill because the Map Quest instructions are in error. The second problem is large trucks which miss the turn-off to the Paper Mill and wind up lost at Point Hudson. After a brief discussion and several suggestions about how to integrate these issues with the others raised, Mr. Sepler said that perhaps the Planning Commission could better clarify what we are trying to accomplish overall. This would include the directional signage as well as the business and building signage discussed earlier. There was also brief discussion about how readable Kiosk signs would be to vehicle traffic. George Unterseher noted that the Kiosk signs must be limited in content so as to be able to accommodate lettering that is large enough to read. He advocated a system of decision point signs, and also advised that care must be taken to ensure that Kiosk updates are affordable, or they won't be maintained. Mr. Emery suggested that an index system for the historic district would be appropriate. The possible provision of various language translations as well was seen as extremely ambitious given the obvious cost and space constraints. Mr. Unterseher noted that those exceptions could be handled via other means such as brochures stating where to find or how to get that special assistance or resources. Mr. Fry cited the `map in the sidewalk' techniques used in Monterrey CA. Ms. Nelson noted that merely having a business name on a Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 September 27, 2007 . Kiosk would not be very useful. Mr. Unterseher responded that the brochures discussed earlier would provide that information, and that advertising space would supply additional revenue. Chair Slabaugh suggested that Mr. Sepler finish his summary and that the discussion be brought to a close. Mr. Ray added the idea that the Chamber of Commerce be brought in early to this discussion and was told that a Chamber member had been serving on the Sign Committee. b. Internet Portal to the GIS System Mr. Sepler talked about the idea raised at the last meeting, which would allow the public as well as staff to easily access permits issued or in process by clicking on a map location for part of town. The cost estimate for customizing the internet Map Server software (available from the County) is approximately $15 - 20,000. He said that a CTED (Washington State Community Trade and Economic Development) grant is available for applying to permit tracking, and the City will apply for that. He said the base cost is to input their records to the database. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Chair Slabaugh restated upcoming meetings information for Mr. LeMaster, who had missed that discussion at the beginning of the meeting. October 11 -- Sign Code Revision (continued) October 25 -Comp Plan Amendments Public Hearing November 8 -Code Revisions on Child Care, Home Occupations and the list of relatively high priority/low resource code changes previously identified. IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Fry moved for adjournment and Mr. Emery seconded. The motion was approved all in favor. Chair Slabaugh adjourned the meeting at 8:32 PM. ~~,1 Liesl labau~h, Chair ,~L~~ • Gail~Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 September Z7, 2007