HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2003 MINUTESMinutes for Approval of
Planning Commission Meeting
May 20, 2003
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Buckingham at 5:36 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kosusko,
Commissioner Nelson, and Commissioner Wood. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Buckingham introduced the agenda. Mr. Hugo requested a revision to the agenda
under the public meeting phase — switch 2a and 2b. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko
and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as revised. Called for a vote:
Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; and Wood: yes. Agenda approved as
revised.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Regular Meeting of April 15, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner
Buckingham. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner
Kosusko to approve the minutes as corrected (date on first page only). Called for a vote:
Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes. Minutes approved as
corrected.
V. Public Meeting
Vice Chairman Buckingham moved directly to the call to the public portion.
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no
comments from the public, Commissioner Buckingham closed this portion of the meeting and
moved onto the public meeting portion.
B. Public Meeting
Public Hearing:
a. PL03 -0024 —Proposed ordinance amending Section 21.02.330 Bremerton Municipal
Code (Signs). Ordinance proposes new standards for off - premises signs.
Commissioner Buckingham introduced this item and turned the meeting over to
staff, Mr. Rogerson.
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 1 of 10
Mr. Rogerson called the Commission's attention to the revised staff report regarding
this matter. He explained that the new staff report is thicker because it has a copy of
the proposed ordinance attached to it. He presented directly from that staff report and
proposed ordinance.
The staff report has several sections — one section describes the original moratorium
establishing a moratorium on the acceptance of application for off - premises signs; a
section discussing the basis of that moratorium; a section discussing the fact that the
moratorium was extended an additional six months this past January and now it
expires on July 23, 2003.
Mr. Rogerson explained that he would begin his presentation of the staff report with a
section on citizen process. Most of the Commission is aware that this draft ordinance
or regulation of off - premises signs is the result of a citizen driven process that was a
command from the Planning Commission and the City Council. We formed a group at
the request of both the Commission and the City Council that has operated over the
course of four meetings. The group was made up of two Planning Commission
members (Commissioners Wood and Cockburn); two members of the Coordinating
Council who were not members of the Planning Commission (Micheal Eversole and
Judith Friedberg - Nerf); two industry representatives — the industry rep that was located
was Mr. Don Plumb of Plumb Signs. Mr. Plumb was not able to attend meetings, but
was forwarded copies of the drafts and other items though e -mail and then two at -large
citizens (Susan Brown and Wendy Priest). This group met a total of four times and
had come up with this draft ordinance.
Please note the section descriptions are numbered somewhat differently than the staff
report. In only one instance is there any substantive change over the draft distributed
last week.
Section one of the ordinance adds a new definitions to Sections 21.02.330 (b) of the
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). That is the definition section of the sign code
portion of the BMC. There are only five new definitions inserted — when you look at
the ordinance you see the entire list of definitions in that section of code. Only five of
those are new. The five new definitions suggested by this ordinance are
#5 — billboards
#22 — off - premises signs
#24 — premises
#27 — sandwich board signs
#31 — vehicle or trailer mounted signs
These are definitions that are part of the draft distributed last week. He then asked if
the Commission had any questions or comments on these definitions.
Commissioner Nelson asked a question regarding the numbering on page two of the
draft ordinance — it goes from (25) to (16). Mr. Rogerson noted that it should be (26)
— it is a typo, and thanked Commissioner Nelson.
Seeing no more questions on definitions, Mr. Rogerson moved on to section two. In
section two of the ordinance, there is a clarification of the "Prohibited Signs" Section.
This section does two things. First — it amends subsection 21.02.330 (f)(7) of the
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 2 of 10
BMC — to make it clear that sandwich board signs are not among the types of signs
that cannot be placed in the right -of -way. He explained that this would become
important as we look further into this ordinance. Second — it adds three new types of
signs to the list of off - premises signs (f)(8), (f)(9), and (f)(10) [off - premises signs,
vehicle or trailer mounted signs, and billboards]. This is one of the major things this
proposal does, is to add these three types to the list of signs types that are prohibited in
the City of Bremerton.
Section three of the ordinance amends 21.02.330(h) of the BMC by adding a new
subsection (1)(iii) which clarifies that sandwich boards are not among those that
cannot be placed in the right -of -way. Mr. Rogerson explained that he did just say that,
but that was in a different section of code where that clarification had to be made.
Section four is a section that you did not have in the previous staff report. This section
makes amendments to the "Nonconforming Signs" section, including addition of
amortization process for legal non - conforming signs which includes existing off -
premises signs and billboards. He reads directly from the draft ordinance,
[commentary is listed in brackets):
"This section adds an essentially new "Non- conforming Signs" section to the
sign code. This section is intended to clarify and add better detail to the more
general previous language — especially as related to amortization. [This
essentially is not provided for in the earlier code, at least not in great detail.]
Most specifically, this new section sets specific time deadlines for removal of
non - conforming signs. Of note is the following:
1. Adds a new section (1)(i) defining the "effective date of this ordinance ".
2. Sets up a requirement that a (free -of- charge) permit be issued for legal
non - conforming signs within 60 days of notification from the City that
such sign is non - conforming. [This enables us to begin tracking that
sign.]
3. If the free permit is not obtained, the non - conforming sign must be
removed within 60 days. [Motivation to come in and get the free permit.]
4. If the permit is not obtained, the sign must be removed within 5 years or
10 years if it is a billboard. [The group that worked on this had originally
seen a 3 year provision. The advice from the City Attorney is that 3 years
has not been found to withstand court challenge in previous cases. Even
5 years will not withstand court challenge in the case of billboards, which
are revenue producing signs. Ten years, according to court cases are
more likely to be sustainable.]
5. Section to (q)(8) — Legal nonconforming billboards subject to the Federal
Highway Advertising Control Act — Scenic Vistas Act are exempt from
amortization requirements of this ordinance. This is because the City
would be liable for compensation under that Federal law. [We would
have to pay full compensation in the process of amortizing the billboard.]
6. All non - conforming signs, including those billboards, lose their legal
nonconforming status upon any of five events. [This is a similar
mechanism which includes all the provision that the study group
discussed. Even though the amortization opportunities don't exist for
billboards because the Federal legislation, if they lose their legal non-
conforming status, they still must be removed under these provisions.]
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 3 of 10
a. Major structural change to the related place of business [on the
property where the sign is located].
b. Change in structure of the business being advertised [the business
off -site that the sign refers to] — the change would have to exceed
25% of its value as calculated by building code valuation tables —
compared to the assessor's value.
c. Abandonment or cessation of the business at the location of the
sign.
d. No major changes to the sign itself.
e. Change of use (as classified by the zone code) at the property
where the sign exists.
f Change in tenant at the location of the sign."
Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was a specific definition of
"major structural change" [(b) and (c) above]. Mr. Rogerson said that in
the case of off -site structural, the 25% covers it. In the case of the on -site
— we wanted to leave that somewhat up to the discretion of the building
official or director of community development. It would be possible to
define it the same way (the 25 %). This was at the advice of the City
Attorney.
7. Section seven adds new section (q)(10) which establishes that if the
sign becomes non - conforming due to government acquisition of right -
of -way — that would primarily be loss of adequate setback because the
right -of -way had been widened, (government condemnation perhaps),
it will be allowed to retain its legal non - conforming status under
certain conditions, which are listed in the ordinance. They would
basically come in and get a Type 11 permit from the City. This
basically says that if government causes this to happens, then the
signer should not be penalized.
Section five presents new standards for the placing of sandwich signs. This section
hasn't changed. He highlighted five standards.
#2 says that you have to maintain an adequate, unobstructed width of
sidewalk for pedestrian traffic — including handicapped accessibility (which
is defined at 48" — this is slightly in excess of the ADA requirement).
#4 says that a limit of one sandwich board sign per business is established.
#5 is a requirement that sandwich board signs be in front of the business. In
other words, not at the end of the block or in any other location. Immediately
in front of the store front of the business that employs the sign, within 12" of
the facade.
#6 -9 is a group of standards that relate to the visual quality, protection of
property values and public safety. They have to do with height, width,
quality of lettering style, professional manufacture and weighting down so
the wind doesn't blow it over, etc.
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 4 of 10
#11 is a violations provision. This says that in case the sandwich board signs
only — the public staff could come out and remove the sign if it violates any
of the provisions. The owner would have to come claim the confiscated sign.
Section six is not expressly related to off - premises signs. The City Attorney is
recommending that we make this change. It is related to the removal of signs section.
This section makes the removal of legal signs a matter subject to the regular hearing
examiner violation process, which was recently adopted (Section 21.02.940 BMC).
We changed the standard procedure for processing violations of the entire zoning to
now make it a matter that goes before the hearings examiner — I think you may have
read about that in the newspaper or are otherwise aware of it. This makes violations of
sign codes clearly part of that same process.
The last section of the staff report discusses the decision criteria. This is a legislative
matter, which means there are no formal, quasi-judicial type of criteria to consider.
However, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is probably the one criteria that
we need to address. This is difficult to do in this case because there are not plentiful
goals in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan that addresses issues like community quality,
design, aesthetics or even safety. Staff was unable to locate any policy that this
amendment would violate. Mr. Rogerson apologized for having to review the criteria
on a "does not violate" basis versus a "clearly supports" basis. This is the best staff
could do based on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. For the Commission's information
(not that it is an actual decision making criteria to consider), the Draft 2003
Comprehensive Plan includes a couple of policies that this does clearly support and
implements — these are listed in the staff report.
Finally, there is a recommendation in the staff report — That it is not inconsistent with
the 1995 Comprehensive Plan also is (for information purposes) consistent with the
draft 2003 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Rogerson then asked if there were any
questions.
Commissioner Nelson asked how staff came to some of the decisions under section
four, number three — referring to the 60 day time period for the signs to be removed.
He wanted to know if this was an arbitrary number or could it be sooner if it is really
posing a problem. Mr. Rogerson stated that it could be sooner, it is not an arbitrary.
It is consistent with some other similar provisions in other locations, not only the sign
code but other portions of the zoning code and violations.
Commission Nelson then asked for clarification regarding nonconforming signs. The
City will give a 60 day notification — he said this seems like a long time. This also is
consistent with other portions of the code? Mr. Rogerson answered by saying that
this provision is only for those who have not availed themselves of the opportunity to
get the free sign permit. In which case, then, they are now looking at the 5 and 10 year
amortization provisions. This is mainly a motivational tool for getting that database
developed.
Commissioner Kosusko asked about the amortization — is there a level of
compensation that happens over these 5 or 10 years? How does that work? Mr.
Rogerson explained that amortization does not suggest any monetary compensation.
Amortization is basically used differently in planning than it is in the accounting
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 5 of 10
world. All it really refers to is allowing there to be adequate time for the value of the
sign to be enjoyed by the property owner. That value is diminished over time because
it had been out there and being used. Commissioner Kosusko clarified /questioned by
saying that it kind of allows them to amortize it.
Commissioner Nelson asked a question regarding section four, number (6)(f) [non-
conforming signs] — If a new tenant moves into the building doing the same
business... example: I purchase a sewing shop or something and the sign advertises a
sewing shop, and just because there are changing tenants or owners — the sign becomes
nonconforming? Mr. Rogerson said that this is only referring to legal non-
conforming, off - premises signs. This is more akin to the sewing shop having a sign on
the corner that says "Sam's Diner — 4 Blocks That Direction." It is saying that at this
point, Sam's Diner sign (not the one advertising the activities on the business site), but
the one advertising activity off -site, has to go. The philosophy of several of these
provisions, including this one — is a point in history when someone is most likely
developing some sort of financing package. It is a good time to roll into those costs
the removal of the sign.
Commissioner Kosusko asked what happens if you have a multiple- tenant building.
Mr. Rogerson answered by saying that this ordinance is only applicable in a single -
tenant building. He explained that legal staff had wrestled with how it would be
handled a multi- tenant building and concluded that it would be too complex. Multi -
tenant buildings are not going to be required to get rid of their legal non - conforming
off - premises signs as a result of this section. It will be the other things that come into
play more in those situations.
There was then a lengthy discussion about the sandwich board signs which included
aesthetic, public safety issues, traffic flow, construction materials, and professional
appearance of the lettering. Also discussed were "human sandwich board signs" and
Kitsap County regulations regarding these; a specific instance of political signs in the
Manette area — which when addressed by Mr. Hugo and Commissioner Kosusko,
was found to be unrelated to this action; licensing sign- maker, etc.; and adequate
width (48 ") for side -by -side space.
Mr. Hugo explained that the department would be looking at street design standards.
We just had a traffic development ordinance that has gone through. He says that we
should probably revisit these standards for the pedestrian environment, particularly in
our more intensive pedestrian environments for the downtown and our centers. There
was some discussion of sidewalk width and current urban design and sidewalk
fixtures. Also, in the downtown plan, there are some primary pedestrian streets
identified in the core district, and the downtown waterfront. On these streets, we have
a provision that requires canopies be put over the sidewalk for 50 -75% of the building
facades for all new buildings. If we have a canopy that sticks out 5 feet and then we
have a sandwich board sign that is up against the building — you take 4 feet of that, this
means that we are putting the walker right in the drip line of the canopy whenever it's
raining. He then had Mr. Rogerson summarize the discussions about these delicate
matters of street design.
Mr. Rogerson said that the recommendation of the group was that we place the
sandwich board signs closer to the side of the building rather than on the other side of
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 6 of 10
the sidewalk (near the curb line). This makes some since in terms of canopies and
street trees. The group eventually decided that they would rather have them up in
front of the building because of two things: 1) conflict of car door opening; and 2) an
emphasis of placing them where they are more visible to the pedestrian and LESS
visible to the passing motorists. It should be a pedestrian oriented feature of the urban
environment.
There was further discussion of sandwich board signs which included curb bump -outs;
motorist visibility; car doors and parking configurations /spacing. Commissioner
Kosusko suggested that since the Commission is doing in depth discussion and
questions that the public be allowed to comment if they wish.
Commissioner Buckingham called for public testimony regarding the proposed
ordinance (PL03- 0024). He explained the rules for public comment and opened the
floor to public comment. Seeing none, he closed public testimony and reopened the
matter to Commission discussion.
Commissioner Kosusko asked a question regarding section 4, item (6)(a) — major
structural changes. He feels that we need a definition — does this refer to re- siding or
partial re- building? Is it a valuation or a definition of what you are actually doing
with/to the structure? He said that he would be more comfortable if there were some
definition there. Mr. Hugo answered by saying that in our "non- conforming rights"
section of the zoning code — there is a definition of what is allowed to be done under
normal maintenance and repair. It does make a distinction about structural elements.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if this could be tied to that in some way. Mr.
Rogerson clarified that in the staff report he used the term "major structural
alterations," but the actual language is "any change, alteration or performed work,
other than normal maintenance or other tenant improvements."
Commissioner Kosusko then continued, and asked a question regarding section
(6)(d). He says this is confusing because it says "No major changes to the sign itself."
He asked staff if they could talk to things that trigger immediate removal. All these
other things are things that trigger immediate removal and the (d) seems to be the
opposite. Mr. Rogerson replied by quoting the actual language, from section seven.
".. alterations. ... making changes, alterations or performing any work to the legal non-
conforming sign, other than regular and normal maintenance. Prohibited sign
alterations include enlarging the face, relocating the sign, replacing the sign —
provided, however, that replacing an individual tenant's identification sign and either a
center identification sign which separately identifies the tenants or a tenant directory
sign which, shall not result in the loss of the signs legal, nonconforming status."
Mr. Hugo referred Mr. Rogerson to 6(d) in the staff report. He stated that the events
that causes a loss of nonconforming status would be a major change to the sign itself —
NOT "no" major change to the sign itself. That correction was noted by staff.
Commissioner Kosusko continued by mentioning the sandwich board sign
discussion. He stated that it appears to limit this type of sign to be something that
stands on the sidewalk. He wondered why the choice of hanging signs or different
standing configurations. Why is it this specific? Mr. Rogerson stated that there are
other provisions in the sign code for signs that hang from awnings and project from the
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 7 of 10
face of buildings. Those of permitted sign types under other sections of the code. The
reason that sandwich board signs doesn't allow for other types of configuration — it
was because the group felt this was the most common type of sign. Mr. Rogerson
said that his sense from the group was that sandwich boards have an urban flavor that
they were interested in seeing in the community. The other configurations did not
have the same flavor.
Commissioner Kosusko continued his comments on sandwich boards. Referring to
the draft ordinance, section (5)(11) — sandwich boards having to be removed after
dusk. He said that there are many restaurants that operate at dinner time, and he
wondered why it didn't say "Must be removed during the hours the business is
closed. ", rather than saying "dusk." Mr. Rogerson stated that is entirely possible to
amend. He said that his suggestion during staff review was "Shall be removed by the
business owner immediately at close of the business day ", rather than dusk —just for
the reason you said. He said that he didn't recall any strong feeling on the part of the
group about that. Mr. Hugo suggested that it simply say that sandwich boards can
only be displayed during business hours.
Commissioner Kosusko continued his comments by referring to the draft ordinance,
section one — included a sign that is hung off a person. He said that this is a big county
issue in Silverdale. He said, he was sure we wouldn't enforce it this way, but — does
this mean that somebody could wear a t -shirt that says "Joe's Garage" on it, walking
down the street. What turns a piece of apparel into a sign? There was a lively
discussion about this. Mr. Rogerson said that the intent was to do a pre - emptive
strike against the kind of signs the members of the group had seen around the county.
We are not seeing them here in the city yet — but they feared they would. Mr. Hugo
informed the group that there has been a court ruling on this issue. The court made a
finding on what constitutes a sign as apposed to apparel. Maybe our legal staff can
check the county record and see what the judge found. Staff made note of this
suggestion.
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there were any other comment or discussion.
Commissioner Nelson asked a question about section (5)(11) of the staff report —
violations. He asked for clarification regarding city official or public staff being able
to correct a violation. Is it centered around safety — could they just take the sign and
move it or is something else driving it? Mr. Rogerson said that the main driver for
that is protection of the legal right -of -way for accessibility and ADA. The way it is
written, a sandwich board sign placed in violation of any of the standards in that
section could be removed. But the main reason for that was that the City feels it is
extremely important if a sign was not allowing adequate passage for accessibility
purposes would be in violation of state or federal law and that we would be able to get
it off the sidewalk immediately. Of course, the enforcement officer would always go
talk to the business owner and ask them to voluntarily move it — so the provision is a
fall back.
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 8 of 10
Commissioner Buckingham closed the discussion on this item and asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to recommend approval of PL03 -0024 — amending Section 21.02.330, BMC,
with the recommended changes [Section (5)(11) "displayed only during business
hours "; Section (4)(q)(9)(d) strike the work NO; change in definition of off - premises
signs to deal with apparel; and Section 4 (q)(6)(a) & (d) definition of major
structural change referring to other non - conforming sections of the code] to the City
Council. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes;
Wood: yes. Motion carries.
2. Workshops:
a. Update on the progress on the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed revision to Chapters 3
and 4 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) relating to view
corridors in all areas subject to the SMP except the area designated Downtown
Waterfront.
Mr. Hugo reminded the Commission that late last year, the Department had
committed to draft revision to the shoreline view corridor regulations for all non -DW
zone districts of the city, similar to the work that had been done for the DW zone.
Chris presented a preliminary city -wide analysis of public accessibility to shorelines,
either by public ownership or terrain opportunities (for views). The analysis also
presented existing built -up shorelines that have limited potential to increase public
accessibility through regulatory view corridor requirements. Chris asked the
Commission if it shared the staff s initial conclusion that continuing to pursue the
public's interests in shorelines access through regulatory means was perhaps
inefficient and contrary to other urban growth objectives -- the great extent of
existing view and physical access could allow a shift in the City's approach to
gaining future access through a capital acquisition program. The Commission gave
its tentative concurrence to more fully develop that alternative strategy. Chris
responded that the staff will return to the Commission with a more detailed proposal
later in the summer.
b. Update on the progress on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rogerson provided an update on progress on; developing the final draft
document, the Final Draft Land Use Map alternatives, and on the schedule for
hearings.
VI. BUSINESS MEETING
A. Chair Report: None.
B. Director Report: Chris Hugo.
1. Mr. Hugo reported that the proposed fence height ordinance would not come back to the
Commission for hearing until the regular June meeting -- he missed the cut -off date for
legal notice publication in time for the May meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 9 of 10
2. Westpark/Eastpark: Mr. Hugo noted that the staff would propose a special land use plan
designation, "Special Redevelopment Opportunity Sites," for these two, large, publicly -
owned sites. These designations would recognize the current Westpark redevelopment
plan prepared by the Bremerton Housing Authority and the pending Eastpark development
plan that will be prepared by Chaffey Homes as "sub- area" plans. Such designations
would allow such land use elements as multi - family housing and separate commercial
without adhering to the strict guidelines of the 'centers' that are the basis for two of the
alternatives in the pending draft Comprehensive Plan.
Annexations: Mr. Hugo noted that the City was reactivating an annexation program
through the Mayor's Office. The first target area is the unincorporated area in East
Bremerton above the Port Washington Narrows, including the Reymont development and
a 40 -acre site owned by the Tracyton Water District.
C. Old Business: None.
D. New Business: None.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2003.
Respectfully submitted by:
Executive Secretary
Approved by:
Scott Buckingham, Vice Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 10 of 10