JOINT MEETING OF KENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND KENT CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT MEMBERS PRESENT: Sean Kaine John Thomas John Gargan Melissa Long STAFF PRESENT: BOARD O F ZONING APPEALS: SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Locke, Community Development Director Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Assistant Law Director Sheila Uzl, Transcriptionist Diane Werner Tammy Roberts Rick Hawksley Council at Large Heidi Shaffer Ward #5 Jack Amhrein Ward #2 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Rick Hawksley Council at Large, Heidi Schaffer Ward #5, Jack Amhrein Ward #2, Diane Werner Board of Zoning Appeals, Tammy Roberts Sustainability Commission, Melissa Long Planning Commission, Sean Kaine Planning Commission, John Gargan Planning Commission, John Thomas Planning Commission III. IV. Correspondence None Old Business None
Page -2- V. New Business ZONINT CODE UPDATE Session #6 Signs Mr. Locke introduced Ms. Roberts as the newest member of the Sustainability Commission. Mr. Locke stated that giving balanced recommendations on the section of the code dealing with signs is difficult for him. He said he has tried to give a balanced approach to the code as far as what is enforceable and what is reasonable. He said he wants to have a reasonable set of recommendations and is looking from some help. He said signage is a two sided issue. He said what is too much and what is not enough is one of the issues with signage. He said 20 or 30 years ago Corporate America did not have the influence that they do now. Currently Corporate America is dictating what kind and how many signs a business, especially the auto industry, should have. There is disagreement on how many or how big. He said some of the likes and dislikes are subjective because the perspective can be determined by the eyes of the beholder. Whereas one person might think that a sign is necessary another might think it junks up the area. He said the staff has looked at some other communities in regards to their sign regulations. He said the City of Kent needs to look at what it wants to do in regards to the signage regulations. Once it is determined where the City wants to go, then some specifics can be outlined. He said signs are a matter of necessity. People locate a business by their sign. He said a business owner might differ with the City on how many signs are needed. He said there are public safety issues to be considered such as the installation so it will not fall and hurt someone or cause damage to property. The second issue is the placement of the sign. He said the placement of some signs could be a problem for people who are driving especially if there is a sight problem. He said sight distance is looked at by staff. He said the lower ground signs might present more of a sight distance issue while the pole signs might be more unsightly. Aesthetic issues also have to be considered because it can be difficult to determine what is adequate. He said the zoning code tries to regulate some of the issues that are more publicly offensive. He said the zoning code states what can and cannot be put on a sign. He said currently there are no adult oriented businesses in the City of Kent but the zoning code cannot exclude them so there are some provisions for them in the code. He said a lot of what the City of Kent does is geared towards the aesthetics of a sign while some of it geared towards public safety. He said the issue of flexibility has been wrestled with over the years. He said in the most part the City s zoning code takes the stand that one size fits all.
Page -3- Mr. Locke said the C-R: Commercial-Residential District, C: Commercial District and the I: Industrial District are permitted one free standing sign and one building sign while the RC District does not allow free standing signs. He said South Water Street is the primary RC District in the City of Kent. There is also one on Lincoln Street. He said the free standing signs that are along South Water Street were pre-existing or they were given variances. He asked if people should have some flexibility to determine what kind of sign or signs they want, pole or building sign, up to the maximum square feet they are allowed. He said staff has had a lot of calls on signs. He said they need to find effective ways to enforce the regulations. He said the aforementioned issues are what the staff thinks are the mains ones. He said the zoning code regulates the number, size and the placement of signs. There are provisions for commercial, noncommercial, political, real estate and temporary signs. He said dealing with signs is one of the busier areas the Community Development Department has as far administration and enforcement. He said Mr. Loomis and Ms. Phile have teamed up and tried to deal with some of the sign issues. He said it is a tough issue because there are some people who are very good at following the regulations while there are others who do not. Right now complaints are sent to the Law Department. He said letters are sent to violators. He said signs require a permit and this is the primary mechanism for enforcement. There are enforcement difficulties and there are numerous violations. Some issues that should be considered is size of the sign, the height, how many and placement. He said in the newer districts such as the Downtown District (C-D) or Neighborhood Commercial the regulations are different than in the other districts. He said one thing to be considered is does one size fit all or should signage be looked at in regards to the size and location of the business or even the use. He said there might be a case to be made for more signage or bigger signage based on the size of the property and the location of the business. Ms. Shaffer asked if electronic signs were permitted. Mr. Locke responded that moving flashing signs are not permitted. He said more people are using the changing electronic signs that might show specials. He said state of the art billboards advertise multiple businesses. Mr. Hawksley asked if the city had a spreadsheet of ranges and options as well as what the issues are. Mr. Locke responded the staff could do one but they did not want do it until they got a sense of where they wanted to go with it.
Page -4- Mr. Hawksley asked Mr. Locke to give some background on the Unified Development Code because there are some changes that are relevant to the City code. Mr. Locke responded that he has not studied it lately. It did use flexibility and some of the definitions are different. He said they might use it but right now staff is trying to get a sense for direction. Ms. Werner asked what kind of signs is permitted in neighborhoods as far as commercial developments. Mr. Locke stated that there is a section in the code that discusses real estate and development signs but it is pretty vague. Mr. Kaine stated that in a large extent the context of the neighborhood should be considered. He said there is some merit in looking at building location, sign location and frontage. Mr. Locke stated it is a scale issue. Mr. Kaine stated that changing graphics can be beneficial in certain districts such as the commercial area; not the residential areas. He said there is a need to be careful about the content. A business should not be able to advertize more because of use. Mr. Hawksley stated that it is appropriate to have different standards for different districts. He said a good example would be no rolling, electric sign, sign in an historical district. He said the sign code should be reviewed and updated. Mr. Thomas stated that a new business is going to open up in the building where Suzanne s Café used to be located. He asked what the new business could expect to get in the way square footage for its sign. Mr. Locke replied that if the owner applied today, the business could have one building sign up to 50 square feet and one free standing sign up to 50 square feet and 25 feet high and it has to sit back at least 10 feet from the right of way line. Mr. Thomas stated he wants to move towards sign regulations that do not lead to adversarial situations. He wants to encourage advertizing as an art form. That is what signage is. He would like to see creativity uniformity in the individual zoning districts. There needs to be flexibility.
Page -5- Ms. Shaffer agreed with Mr. Thomas. She said the businesses need to be considered. There needs to be clear flexible regulations. She stated that there are probably other locations besides downtown that could have pedestrian signage. She asked if a sign on the front door is considered one of the allowable signs. Mr. Locke replied yes and went on to say that staff could not spend an enormous amount of time on sign enforcement when it keeps them from doing something else. He said the redevelopment of downtown is going to need good signage. The C-D District does not cater to cars; free standing signs are not allowed. Most of the signs are on the building and there are provisions for signs on the back of the building. Mr. Hawksley stated that substantial improvements have been made over the years. He said the existing signage code needs to be looked at because the sign code projects the community standard. The community standard is what is enforced or not enforced. It has to be determined what everyone wants the City of Kent to look like. Mr. Thomas asked if Kiosk type signage has been considered which would tell a pedestrian what businesses were located in that area. Mr. Locke stated that this idea was raised early on in the master plan. He said they realized that traffic signage was important for both pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic. He said that most of those could be located in the public right of way so some decisions have to be made about public right of way signage. Mr. Kaine reminded the members of the audience they were welcome to make comments when they wanted to. Mr. Locke asked whether the signage criteria should be for the entire City. He stated that that he was getting the sense that there is some interest in considering different types of requirements for different areas rather than sticking to one size fits all. Ms. Shaffer asked if there is a particular criteria for the historical district in the City of Kent. What would stop someone from putting a plastic sign up in this type of district? Mr. Locke replied if it is in a residential district, there is a limitation on signs. This is a question that does not come up very often but when it does the staff gets torn between going by the zoning district versus by the use. If it is a nonconforming use and the business wants a new sign, the owner has to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Page -6- Mr. Thomas stated that color in a sign character itself is leaning towards regulating content. He assumed that the Board of Zoning Appeals only jurisdiction is on setbacks and square footage; not the color or content. He did not think color or content would stand tests for community standards. Mr. Locke replied he did not think these should be put in the zoning code. He said most everyone who has sat on one of the board has gone beyond what is in the zoning code and has subjectively concluded that a sign is ugly or nice looking. It is the human thought process and they may vote for or against it. Mr. Kaine stated that design review standards would help guide the boards. Mr. Locke went on to discuss the regulation of temporary signs. A person is allowed to have a temporary sign for 30 day increments for a total of 90 days per calendar year. There is a cost for a permit. A temporary cannot be any larger than 4 x 3. He said a determination has to be decided on the size and length as well as if moving parts and pieces can be on these temporary signs. He asked if an incentive should be in place to encourage the temporary sign to become a permanent changeable one. Mr. Amhrein stated he has been called numerous times on the black signs with fluorescent letters on them. He said they are not aesthetically pleasing and some block the ability to see as a person turns or pulls out of a parking lot. Ms. Werner asked why there was a need of temporary signs. Mr. Gargan asked if they could be banned. He said there might be times such as for seasonal businesses when a temporary sign is needed. He said restrictions are needed. Mr. Amhrein said that Stow or Hudson do not have any temporary signs. He said they do not look good. Mr. Hawksley asked what temporary means. A temporary sign should be for three days. It becomes a permanent sign if it is left up for an extended number of days. He said a sticker with the date a permit was issued as well as the initials of who issued the permit should be on the sign for all to see. If the sign does not have a permit, the owner has 48 hours to remove it or the Community Development Department staff can take it down. Mr. Thomas stated this community has migration shifts twice a year when Kent State students move in and out. This would be times when businesses would have
Page -7- a need for temporary signs to advertize specials. He said business owners should be allowed two blocks of non-consecutive times when temporary signs can be posted. He supported the idea of providing an incentive to owners to change a temporary sign to a permanent one. Mr. Kaine stated that temporary signs are not a motivation to people to visit the community. He suggested instead of bonding the signs, they are forfeited if the sign is up beyond the permitted date. He said fees should be structured so that it is better for a person to have a permanent sign rather a temporary one. Mr. Amhrein asked how filling stations signs were dealt with that have numerous advertisements on their signs and at times can block the sight distance. Mr. Locke replied the staff would have to deal with it as with all other situations. Again, he said it has to be determined how much time the staff should spend on this type of issue. He said they could not confiscate a sign if it was not in the public right of way. He said they could try to take violators to court. Ms. Long stated Section 1165.11(b) stated that 90 days is the permitted time for temporary signs. She thinks it is too long. She said there should be a list of what temporary signs can be used for. They should also be installed in a permanent base which in turn might encourage the owner to make it a permanent one. Mr. Locke stated that if an owner has the option to keep the sign with its base, then it would have an additional free standing signs. Ms. Long suggested that if a business already has a pole sign, it cannot have a temporary sign. Mr. Kaine stated that 90 days sounds like a long time but if the time was broken up it does not seem as long. Mr. Hawksley stated there is a section in the code that deals with special events signs. He said a piece of plywood tacked onto the side of a building advertising specials is not acceptable. Nancy Adams, 366 High Street Kent, Ohio asked if hand held signs are permitted. Mr. Locke replied they are not technically legal. Mr. Thomas stated they are legal.
Page -8- Mr. Fink stated that in the City s code they are not, but in the U.S. Constitution they are legal; freedom of speech rights. Mr. Hawksley stated that trucks are being used as signs more and more. Mr. Locke stated that regardless of what is allowed good methods of enforcement should be built into the code. He asked if everyone wants to take the whole code on since it is interlocked or have separate sections for various issues. He is going to have a chapter on rooming houses. He will probably put the sign definition into the sign section. He said the next meeting will be on design standards. Ms. Shaffer stated that the design standards need to be made available. Mr. Locke replied copies will be made and they can be mailed or picked up. It was decided to have the next meeting in August because there is nothing on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting and Mr. Locke might be having surgery on his shoulder. Mr. Locke stated that this is a lengthy process and that there would probably be a lot of public input as well as discussion by all the various boards and Kent City Council. Mr. Hawksley stated they should divide the zoning code into sections and prioritize. He would like to see changes sooner than later. VI. VII. Other Business None Adjournment MOTION: Ms. Shaffer moved to adjourn. Mr. Gargan seconded the motion. The motion passed 9 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.