February 16, 2010 SUMMARY REPORT

Transcription

1 JOINT MEETING OF KENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY BOARD AND KENT CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sean Kaine John Gargan Melissa Long Gary Locke, Director of Community Development Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Assistant Law Director BOARD O F ZONING APPEALS: Peter Paino Paul Sellman Steve Balazs Diane Werner COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Shaffer Ward #5 Erik Valenta - Council at Large ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY BOARD Allan Orashan I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 8:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Erik Valenta Council at Large, Heidi Schaffer Ward 5, Peter Paino Board of Zoning Appeals, Diane Werner Board of Zoning Appeals, Steve Balazs Board of Zoning Appeals, Paul Sellman Board of Zoning Appeals, Sean Kaine Planning Commission, John Gargan - Planning Commission, Melissa Long Planning Commission, Allan Orashan, Architectural Advisory Board. III. Correspondence Information received from Mr. Locke in the packets sent out.

2 Page -2- IV. Old Business A. Review and discussion of revised draft Sign Ordinance Mr. Kaine turned the meeting over to Mr. Locke. Mr. Locke stated he had sent a memo to everyone as well as Revision #2 of the Draft Sign Ordinance. He said this has turned into quite a bit of labor when trying to sort through all the comments. He has looked at all the comments that everyone has provided. He has incorporated many of the comments in the second revised draft. Items not included in this draft can always be added if there is a consensus that they should be. He said he wanted to review the outline with them. He said in the past he has gotten some design criteria for signage and it is his intent to incorporate them as an appendix in the zoning code after architectural design standards. Mr. Locke then went on to discuss the sections of the ordinance. Section Purpose - had no changes. Section Applicability - refers to several aspects regarding signage. The wording concerning Civil infractions is not only in this section but in other chapters as well. The Planning Commission is currently considering a zoning amendment to cause the civil infraction to be utilized throughout the zoning code. The threshold has been increased for a sign from 50% to 60% for the replacement value under (c)(4)c. Subsection (d)(4)d reduces the period of the legal status of a nonconforming sign from 6 months to 90 days. Section Definitions - a definition for Building Sign was added under (a)(9). The reference of portable sign has been changed to sandwich board sign under (a)(37). Under (a)(41) noted that changeable copy may be utilized on temporary signs. Ms. Long asked if a portable sign is now considered a temporary sign. Mr. Locke replied yes. He said a sandwich board sign could also be considered a temporary sign. Ms. Long asked why signs were allowed now when previously they were not. She asked if this was by definition Mr. Locke replied this was by terms of use. He said typically there are changeable letters on temporary signs that advertises special sales that are going on.

3 Page -3- Ms. Long asked if temporary signs could be movable or do they have permanent bases. Mr. Locke stated that temporary signs are no longer permitted on top or in vehicles. Ms. Shaffer stated that that temporary signs should be added in (j) under Section Mr. Locke agreed with Ms. Shaffer. Ms. Shaffer stated she had hoped that the use of temporary signs, especially sandwich board signs, would be restricted. She said that the sandwich board signs should be treated differently because they can be brought back inside the place of business when it was closed while a temporary sign could stay up for 90 days. Mr. Locke stated that the use of sandwich boards signs are more restricted but they are not eliminated. Ms. Shaffer suggested that a statement be added that a sandwich board sign be put inside when the business was closed. Mr. Locke replied that could be done but it may not be practical. He said a lot of businesses rely on those signs. If they were not allowed at all it might create a situation where business owners conclude that Kent was not a good place to do business. Ms. Long asked what happened if the 90 days was ignored. She asked if it then became an enforcement issue. Mr. Locke replied that if City Council approves the civil infraction, one would be issued to the person who violates the 90 day rule. Ms. Long suggested that if a temporary sign was up more than the permitted 90 days and the business still wanted that a sign, it would be required to put on a permanent base. Then it would be placed at the place of business in some permanent area. Ms. Shaffer stated that if a business still wanted a temporary sign, the City could encourage the sandwich board signs so that they could be taken down when the business was closed.

4 Page -4- Mr. Gargan stated there might be a seasonal business that would need a temporary sign for 90 days in the spring but would not need it permanently. Ms. Long asked if the business could return and ask for another temporary sign in another season for another 90 days. Mr. Paino stated that a temporary sign is allowed for 90 days a year; 45 days at one time. Mr. Locke stated that a small business may need the temporary signs for a cheaper form of advertising. He said the signage ordinance could be too restrictive or it could go the other way and allow temporary signs all the time. He said neither scenario is good. He said if business owners want more signage than what they are permitted to have, a signage plan has to be developed and they have to go before the Planning Commission to have it approved. Part of this process is that the signage would go before the Architectural Advisory Board. The different design criteria and the enforcement of the civil infraction play a part in the whole process and it ends up that the signage plan is more in line to what is acceptable. The Planning Commission has the option to approve or disapprove the signage plan. Mr. Paino asked how the signage plan would proceed. Mr.Locke replied it would have to go before the Planning Commission. If there was more signage in terms of number and size, the request would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a variance for the number of signs or for size. He said it would be a lot easier for the Board of Zoning Appeals if the applicant came in with a sign plan as well as pictures of all the existing signs. Mr. Kaine stated the process is stronger because it goes before the Planning Commission and the Architectural Advisory Board. He said the design districts can be covered with different criteria in the different overlay areas. Ms. Long asked if temporary signs could be permanent if a small business owner cannot afford the citation or a building sign or awning but could move his temporary sign every day when the business closed. Mr.Locke replied yes if it there were no other signs, it could potentially become a permanent sign. Ms. Long stated that at some point the City needs to define at what point a temporary sign becomes a permanent sign that requires a permanent base.

5 Page -5- Mr.Locke replied this would go back and be defined in the design criteria. Mr. Fink stated that the issue before Board of Zoning Appeals at its meeting last night would still have gone before the Board of Zoning Appeals because it was a size issue. Mr. Orashan stated that (j) should be changed by adding temporary/ sandwich board signs. In response to a comment by Ms. Shaffer, Mr. Locke stated that there could be electronic signs with changeable copy. Mr. Paino stated that changeable copy is different than digital. Mr. Locke stated that corrections could be made if that was wanted. It was asked if electronic changeable copy on temporary signs should be eliminated. Mr. Locke replied no because that was a separate issue. He said they would have to look back to where changes would be needed to accomplish that. Ms. Shaffer stated that if someone wanted to put up a permanent electronic sign, they have to go before a board to evaluate it to determine any safety issues. If someone puts up a temporary electronic sign it could resort in clutter and could present a safety issue to drivers. Mr. Locke stated that there are restrictions that limit how much of the sign can be changeable copy area. He said the safety issue would be the same. The issues are how easy the sign is read. He said smaller signs are wanted but they are harder to read. Mr. Kaine stated that this revision is much better that the current one. He said the staff has worked a long time on it and it will not be perfect. He would rather not spend another 6 to 8 months on this. Ms. Shaffer stated that City Council wants to limit temporary signs. She said the sign policy is a hot button issue. Mr. Locke stated that enforcement was more of an issue and the ramifications have to be considered with regard to restricting temporary signs.

6 Page -6- Section (a)(1)(D) includes signs installed by the City of Kent for a public purpose as signs which may be installed in the public right-of-way. Section (b) and (c) eliminated restrictions on colors and lettering styles of lettering. Mr. Locke stated that colors and styles are too hard to enforce. Section (g) eliminated reference to licensed contractor since the city does not license sign contractors. Section (J) increased the amount of changeable copy are from 20 % of the total to 30% with the provision that the area can be increased to 60% with the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. Section (k) added wording in regard to the restriction concerning the illumination of signs on top of page 11. A lot of the concerns of the illumination of the signs ties in with safety issues. Direct, intense lighting is also discussed. Mr. Fink stated that Mr. Balazs asked if something should be put in (k) about measuring how much light comes out. Mr. Locke stated he was not sure if there was a photometric plan for signs. Mr. Fink stated that it would be a subjective issue and it has already been stated that they can be a distraction. Mr. Locke stated that he could get a letter from the Safety or Police Department. Ms. Werner stated that a resident expressed a concern about lights from the Klaben signs shining into his windows. Mr. Locke stated he would have to check into that. Section , Permanent Signs (a) Broke out signage allowances for small and large scale conditionally permitted uses that can be reviewed as part of a conditional use review or separately. The larger scale conditional uses would require review by the Architectural Advisory Board. He said the Planning Commission would review sign as part of the site plan and the signage plan would be dependent on the project size. (a)(3) E substituted monument for ground in reference to the type of sign and stipulated maximum heights for both pole signs and monument signs. Under (b) similar change to what was noted in subsection (a).

7 Page -7- Mr. Kaine stated that all businesses in the R-C District are conditional so all of No. 3 on page 15 should be struck out because it would actually fall under one of the other sections. He added that Residential Real Estate signs should be 6 square feet not 32 square feet. Section Temporary Signs - (a) Added references to changes (a) and also added reference to new subsection (b)(9). (a)(5) Added a restriction that disallows temporary signs from being placed in or on top of vehicles. (b)(9) Added a restriction that disallows temporary signs from being placed in or on top vehicles. Mr. Paino referred to page 21 (4) and asked about for sale signs in non-residential districts and raised the issue that they could only be up for 45 days. Mr. Locke stated that similar language would be added to signs in residential districts. Ms. Shaffer stated that some of the for rent signs are up all year. Mr. Kaine stated that he was not sure that a distinction could be made. Mr. Gargan said that a for sale is up until the property is sold. How is the for rent sign any different? Mr. Fink stated that some are not ever taken down even when there are no rentals available. Mr. Locke said nothing prevents a permanent for rent sign. Mr. Paino said that when a sign is put in the yard, it is temporary. Some signs are posted on the front of a house that are left there permanently. Mr. Valenta said that was something they were trying to get rid of. He said some times the signs are being used as a means of advertising. The signs should be temporary and when they units are occupied the sign must be taken down. Mr. Locke said that would be hard to enforce. Mr. Fink stated that any fines would be the burden of the owner.

8 Page -8- Mr. Locke stated that they could say that signs in a residential district have to be free standing and could not be fixed to a building. In response to a comment, Mr. Kaine agreed that real estate sign should be free standing in residential districts. In terms of visual clutter, it would be better for the sign to be on a building. Mr. Fink stated there are some codes for residential districts. He expressed a concern if signs were prohibited from being mounted on a building. Mr. Locke questioned whether the City s right supersedes a person s right to sell or rent a property. In regards to signs that are on display that advertise for a business product or service that is no longer on the premises where the sign is located, the definition of an abandoned sign could apply. Mr. Kaine stated he was keeping a list of some the issues raised and will probably ask everyone for their comments and then take a consensus and give them to Mr. Locke. Section Standards - Under (f)(1) (2) and (3) a reference was added to sandwich board signs. Section Additional Signage Provisions has no changes. Section Prohibited - Under (a)(2) the restriction of flashing, moving signs was eliminated. This section would conflict electronic signs. Section Sign Permits - has no changes. Section Signs Not Requiring Permits - under (b)(4) the restriction on a wall sign over a window or door which limited sign to 3 square feet was eliminated. It was decided to leave in (b)(4) at 1 square foot and not 3 square feet. Section Comprehensive Sign Plans - under (e)(4), a statement that sign plan needs to be consistent with any design guidelines applicable to a specific area as may identified in Chapter 1121 of the Kent City Zoning Code, or if there are no guidelines specifically applicable, that the signage comply with a set of sign design guidelines that would be included as an appendix to the zoning code. A set of sign design recommendations/criteria is currently being reviewed.

9 Page -9- Section Abandoned Signs - under (a)(2) a section was modified to require removal of signs applicable to a business if the business has ceased operation for a period of 90 days or more rather than 120 days. Sections Substitution of Messages - Section Severability, and Section Violations have no changes. Mr. Kaine restated some of the issues raised such a change in the square footage on real estate signs and nameplate signs. One section was deleted on a business that was no longer a problem because it was a conditional use. The issue on the manual changeable copy was decided by the majority as acceptable on temporary signs but not on electronic temporary signs. He said the staff needs to do research for light coming from signs onto adjacent properties. He said there are also had been a discussion on for sale and for rent signs and it was decided permanently attached signs in a commercial district were alright but could not be affixed to buildings in a residential area and were alright displayed in windows. V. New Business NONE VI. Other Business Mr. Locke stated he will the final draft so that the process can begin. He said the architectural standards have been delayed because they are waiting on the WORD format version. That is needed so there is a truncate version so everyone would not have to read the whole section. The public would not want to read the whole section. Ms. Shaffer suggested using pictures and condensing the section for the public and new businesses. Mr. Locke stated that Main Street may have packets for new businesses but the City of Kent does not. Ms. Long asked if the Architectural Advisory Board has been formed yet. Mr.Locke replied no. Mr. Kaine stated the Architectural Review Board should go first.

10 Page -10- Mr. Locke stated that City Council has emphasized signs while this group is saying to go with the architectural design standards first so maybe they can be done concurrently. He said some other sections could be packaged. He said the public does need time to comment on the changes and additions. He said suggestions can be ed. Ms. Long asked if the Planning Commission should recommend to City Council what the process should be in that the Architectural Review Board should be in place. That way they would be able to go through with the design standards plan and the new changes in signage. Mr.Locke replied that the Planning Commission already has to recommend changes to City Council. It just has to be decided how to package it. He suggested that the Architectural issues be done first. He said the Planning Commission could start the amendment process. Ms. Shaffer stated that as a body, they should let City Council know what has been discussed. She said she agreed with Mr. Locke but at the same time she did not want to wait a month or two on the sign issues. Mr. Locke stated both could be done concurrently and at least get the information to the public. Mr. Kaine said there will not be a meeting in March. The April meeting will cover topics already discussed. Mr. Locke said the revisions of the signage regulations will be ed as well as sign design and an outline of the public process. He said there will be three public meeting and then things go to the Planning Commission and the City Council. X. Adjournment MOTION: Mr. Gargan moved to adjourn. Ms. Long seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting closed at 9:25 p.m.