HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2005
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 8. 2005
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward, Joan Mason and Judi Roland.
Kevin Chapman was absent.
STAFF: David Osaki, Community Development Administrator; Steve Pilcher, Development Services
Coordinator; and Patricia Zook, Planning Secretary
Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee members present: Mike Morrisette, Chamber of Commerce; Mike Harbin,
Spectrum Signs; Debbie Luce, Auburn Downtown Association; and Sam Pace, Realtor.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Peace.
. Approval of Minutes - January 4, 2005 Meeting
Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to approve the minutes.
The motion passed.
DISCUSSION
. Sign Code with Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee
Chair Peace said that based on discussions at the last Commission meeting, the ad hoc sign code
committee was invited to attend tonight for an informal exchange of information. The Mayor heard
concerns about the current sign code regulations especially from members in the business community
and he formed the sign code committee with representatives from the Auburn Downtown Association,
Chamber of Commerce and the development community. Dave Peace and Sue Singer were also on the
committee.
Mr. Morrisette said the current sign code was over 20 years old and it was difficult to understand. The City
has changed considerably in those 20 years. Chair Peace provided information on why the sign code is
regulated by zoning districts. You don't want a 30 foot tall sign in a residential area. The committee feels
that the proposed sign code is much easier to understand.
Commissioner Larsen asked why the real estate community believes they need separate sign regulations
and provisions. Chair Peace said that they believe their signs are different than all other signs and should
receive special protection. Sam Pace was on the committee and represented the real estate brokers.
They believe they have certain Federally protected rights pertaining to real estate signage.
Mr. Pace spoke at length about a court case in Redmond that's being litigated over the issue of that city's
sign ordinance being too restrictive relating to real estate signs. He believes that real estate signs are
Federally protected under the Fair Housing Act which is why it receives much attention in the new code.
Commissioner Ward referred to her comments made in the January Commission minutes: Commissioner
Ward referred to real estate signs, and wondered about the concern of a separate provision for real estate
signs being content based and restricting free speech based on content. She said the section for real
estate signage could be construed as content based and should be reviewed by the City Attorney.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 8. 2005
Mr. Osaki advised that Dan Heid, the City Attorney, is reviewing this matter. Mr. Pace offered to provide
the amicus brief to Commissioner Ward and the City Attorney. Mr. Pace said that he presented two
different white papers to City earlier in the sign code revision process.
Mr. Harbin commented that instead of a liberal and haphazard sign code, the proposed code will be more
consistent and easier to understand. Also, a person wouldn't have to switch between the different
sections.
Mr. Morrisette said the use of zoning districts is an easier path and he had hoped for a net increase in the
type or size of signs by 5%. The compromise was flexibility which is built into the proposed plan and has
more options: The Chamber is pleased with the proposed plan. Sometimes franchise businesses such
as a hoteVmotel don't have a lot of options for signage. The sign design comes from the parent company
and is in the franchise agreement that they are required to put up a certain size and kind of sign. There is
now flexibility to accommodate those situations.
Mr. Pace commented that the Mayor, Paul Krauss, Sean Martin and Shirley Aird worked hard to develop a
proposed sign code and the effort started more than one year ago. There has been a lot of involvement in
preparing the new code which is a good piece of work. The Pianning Commission will have confidence in
the proposed code at the end of their review. An early discussion was about the nature of signage and
there were significant conflicts. Staff thought there was too much signage and that the signage should
have an aesthetic element. The strength of the proposed code is that it reflects the understanding that
communicating a message is the purpose of signage and tries to ensure a message will be communicated
to the intended audience consistently with the ambiance of the City. There were significant efforts to
create more flexibility. There were efforts to minimize the likelihood that signs will have a negative effect.
There was a good effort to try to accommodate the reality that signs can create a sense of excitement and
be helpful to the economy. There was an effort to deal with the unique configuration of buildings and
signs for the businesses. The sign committee looked at trying to minimize strip signage and to reduce the
number of business names on signs.
Mr. Harbin said the goal is to try to make sure there wasn't any punitive action against folks in business for
a long time and to take the regulations from here on forward. As time goes on and improvements are
made, then they can change the signs.
Mr. Pace commented that there is a significant amount of industrial property that is changing, such as the
Boeing property, and the kinds of uses that replace aviation/manufacturing/assembly may not resemble
those existing uses at all. The new uses could be significantly smaller businesses. One thing that is
essential is the requirement for a sign code that is functional and supportive of the small firms that come
in and take Boeing's sites. For example, there could be several firms in one large building versus one
business in one large building. There needs to be flexibility for the businesses to have the signage they
require.
Commissioner Larsen spoke about job opening signs on many corners in the City of Kent and Auburn.
Companies use these signs as a way to advertise their openings. It's a creative way to find employees.
Wouldn't these temporary signs advertising job openings also be protected? Because employment
discrimination is Federally protected, the Planning Commission wants the City Attorney to review the
matter.
Discussion occurred related to why A-board signs are allowed in the downtown area which is more
pedestrian friendly. Some Commissioners expressed concern over the safety issue of A-board signs
blocking sidewalks.
Mr. Harbin provided background on the committee's discussion of sign heights and viewing the signs
when driving by. For example, the casino on 151h Street NW could actually have a sign much larger than
-2 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 8. 2005
the one they currently have. He spoke of the committee's desire to reduce the dimensions of signage and
provide flexibility.
In response to Commissioner Douglass's inquiries and concerns about signage for new developments,
Mr. Harbin spoke about Lakeland's off site signs which efficiently and effectively direct visitors to their site.
These signs are designated as temporary signs, not permanent. Lakeland's subdivisions have already
been through the required public hearing processes and approved by Council. The off site signs are
placed on private property with the permission of the property owners.
Mr. Osaki said that the code doesn't talk about off premise signs for multi family developments 'for rent'.
The current code is very limiting. He is unsure if he agrees with writer of the letter who wanted to be
allowed to place signs off site signs several blocks away from his rental property, but there is a need to
address the ability for multi family developments to advertise units for rent better than what the current
code allows.
Mr. Harbin spoke about permanent signs versus temporary signs and the difference between the
intentions. For example, in a neighborhood plat, when the plat is sold out all the signs are removed. They
don't want to open the door for persons to have permanent 'for rent' signs up all the time for apartment
projects. Plats are marketed for a short period of time and then the signs are removed.
Significant discussion occurred related to 'for rent' signage for multi family complexes. Since apartments
are always looking for tenants, these 'temporary' signs often turn into permanent signs. Planning
Commission requested that staff review the code related to temporary 'for rent' signs for these
developments. Mr. Osaki commented that staff will review other sign codes related to this topic.
Commissioner Mason asked why the City should give rental managers an advantage over other
businesses. Commissioner Larsen said the City allows persons selling subdivisions for current
construction to have signs so why not also allow signs for rental property? Mr. Pace suggested that
Planning Commission and staff talk with the rental housing association. He spoke about Renton's new
regulations.
Commissioner Ward inquired about the necessity of a permit for political signs over 32 square feet. Chair
Peace said this was to ensure these large signs are installed properly. Requiring a permit doesn't say you
can't do, you just need to install the sign a certain way. Mr. Osaki advised that the political sign section is
being reviewed by the City Attorney.
Discussion occurred related to billboards, not allowing any new ones, and that it is difficult to remove the
existing ones. Planning Commission consensus was that if billboards are unwanted, then billboards
should be listed under 'prohibited signs' so it is apparent.
Conversation then occurred related to paintings on store windows which advertise specials. Mr. Harbin
said the committee talked about murals and used an example of the wall mural on B Street which is not
considered a sign, and is publicly commissioned art work.
Mr. Morrisette advised that it is hard to cover every eventually, situation and scenario in the sign code.
There is the issue of being specific versus flexibility. There are processes in place to deal with the
unknowns. He has confidence that the proposed sign code is the best they could develop and colleagues
agree. The point is to make the sign code manageable, usable and minimize any problems or difficulty in
understanding or administering. Mr. Harbin concurred that you can't dream up every potential
circumstance or event.
Chair Peace mentioned that the Committee spoke about the need for administrative graphics for
explanation purposes and for illustrative purposes, but the diagrams should not be in the actual code, but
in handout form.
-3-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 8. 2005
Mr. Harbin commented that most cities require a permit to get a sign to be placed on a business door
which is ridiculous. The business name needs to be on the business door for police and fire to locate the
business. The proposed rules are better for the City and for businesses.
Mr. Pace spoke of the need for signage for businesses pulling customers off Highway 18, the difference in
elevations between the highway and the businesses located below, and the height of signs for those
businesses. There may be special needs in these areas. He's not sure how this is addressed in the code
or how the Planning Commission or City Council feels about this.
Commissioner Mason spoke of the need for sign consistency in the downtown area. Mr. Morrisette spoke
about the signage requirements for franchise businesses.
Discussion occurred related to garage sale signs which aren't mentioned in the code. Garage sales
happen on the weekends when Code Enforcement is not available. Planning Commission would like to
see the temporary garage sale signs addressed in the code.
Commissioner Roland said that she appreciated the sign committee coming to tonight's meeting to
discuss the proposed sign code. Chair Peace thanked the sign code committee members for attending
the meeting. Mr. Pace stated that staff did a great job, and they are a credit to themselves and the City.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
· Mr. Osaki introduced Steve Pilcher, the Development Services Coordinator.
· Mr. Osaki provided information on Project Ace. A full description of the project is on the City's
website.
· The closure of Thomas Academy was discussed.
· Mr. Osaki provided information on a joint meeting with Federal Way and King County to discuss West
Hill annexations and joint development standards.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm
PCIAGNDIMIN 02-2005
-4 -