Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 09-03-2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-03-08.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 3, 2008 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: none. Alternate Commissioners present: Tim O’Neil and Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Deputy City Attorney Aaron Walls, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of April 23, 2008, and June 18, 2008, were approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Fewins informed the Commission that the Community Development Services bi-annual budget has been forwarded to the City Manager. The City Manager will make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that the terms for three of the Commissioners expire September 30, 2008 (Merle Pfeifer, Bill Drake, and Sarady Long). The deadline for applications is September 26, 2008. Commissioner Drake will not seek reappointment. The next Planning Commission meeting will be September 17, 2008. There are two items on the agenda: Federal Way Commute Trip Reduction Plan and Outdoor Storage Containers Code Amendment. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Portable Signs Code Amendment Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. This amendment would allow portable signs meeting certain requirements to be allowed within the public right-of-way, in addition to government signs, which are the only signs presently permitted. This will be followed by more in-depth code amendments to allow signs general access to the right-of- way with reasonable restrictions. The future amendments will involve creating a stakeholders group of interested citizens. Ms. Clark explained the current code for signs and the right-of-way and the proposed amendments. The purpose of the code amendments is to: protect public infrastructure and property within public rights-of-way and promote traffic and traveler safety. Signs would be allowed in the right-of-way based on the following conditions: 1. Signs may not be affixed to the ground, by stakes or other means, nor attached to objects, such as stop signs or utility poles. 2. No more than two signs are allowed per person, event, or business. 3. Signs may not exceed six square feet per sign face. 4. Signs may not exceed 36 inches in height. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 3, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-03-08.doc 5. Signs are only allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and must be removed every day. 6. Signs shall not be located on the travelled portion of a roadway, in parking lanes, on sidewalks, in bicycle lanes, or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle, bicycle, wheelchair, or pedestrian travel or views. 7. Signs shall not be located in street medians or in street side planter strips. The meeting was opened for public testimony. Diana Noble-Gulliford – She presented the Commission with a letter. She has lived in Federal Way since 1970. Is a Realtor and is president of the Historical Society of Federal Way. The Historical Society would like to place signs that would direct people to the Historical Cabins during the times they are open. The proposal would allow only two signs to direct people to an open house and/or event. Due to the street configuration in many of Federal Way neighborhoods, two signs would not be adequate to direct traffic; they would need six or more. She commented that nine out of ten people come to an open house because of the signs. The proposed hours of 10:00 to 3:00 are not practical. Many open houses are held from 12:00 to 5:00. She encouraged the Commission to increase the number of signs to at least six, change the hours from 10:00 to 9:00, and to allow organizations to place signs reminding people to vote. Marylyn Gates – She understood the code amendment was to be about A-board signs, not any portable sign. She asked that the amendment address only A-board signs and not any portable sign. Two signs are not adequate for an open house. The standard size for A-board signs is 24 x 24 inches and she suggested this size be made the standard size in the code. The hours are inadequate. She suggested the hours be dawn to dusk. SeaTac allows signs seven days per week from dawn to dusk and she encouraged Federal Way to do the same. She asked if those in the audience who opposed the proposed amendment in its current form would please stand and the entire audience stood up. Lori DeVore – She commented that this is a very important issue for the sellers. Two signs to advertise for an open house are not adequate because many neighborhoods have twists and turns. She also feels the proposed hours are inadequate. She also requested that A-boards be allowed in the planter strip if there is room. They are light and would cause no damage. Commissioner Bronson pointed out that the restriction to two signs is only for signs in the public right-of-way. The code currently allows, and would continue to allow, 10 signs in the private right-of-way. Debra Snoey – She is a resident of Covington and runs a Windermere office in Federal Way. She is aware that many times codes are arrived at because of abuses. She encouraged the Commission to not base their decision on abuses. She feels this is a consumer-rights issue. Adequate signage for open houses will help citizens. Dean Cruff – It is crucial for sellers and buyers to get homes sold and adequate signage is a part of that. Jerrie Lottes – She has lived in Federal Way since 1987. She thanked the Commission for listening to the views of the audience. Our sellers depend upon us; especially in today’s economy. Signs are critical to getting homes sold. The hours are inadequate. She suggests six signs and 10:00 to dusk. Charlotte Carper – She is a managing broker for Prudential and supports six signs and hours of dusk to dawn. Judi Hodge – She agrees with what has been previously said. Angela McGregor – She thanked the Commission for reviewing the code. Agents usually place signs on the street corners and more than two signs are needed to do the job adequately. Selling homes helps the City’s tax revenue and more signs will sell more homes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 3, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-03-08.doc Melody Stumpf – She is with John L. Scott and has been a Realtor since 1995. She agrees with what has been said. Recently she showed a house that needed 10 signs in order to adequately direct people. (She would much prefer to deal with just two signs, but may need up to 10.) She noted that there are a number of businesses and people involved with selling a home, in addition to the buyer and seller. Terri Schrut – Agrees with what has been said. Mary Ann Donne – Agrees with what has been said. Suggests signs be allowed starting at 9:00 a.m. Sheri Smukalla – Signs need to be in the public eye. Jennifer Star– Agrees with what has been said. Bob Almeda – Manager with Prudential NW. Currently, there is no legal area signs can be placed along 320th and 312th streets. He suggests six signs and hours of dusk to dawn. Joanne Rubin – She commented that the City would receive tax revenues from homes that are sold. New owners also tend to make changes to their home, thereby generating even more tax revenue and putting others to work. Sam Pace, South King County Association of Realtors – He handed out a packet of material to the Commissioners. This material had been given to the City Council earlier. It includes proposed language for the proposed code amendment. He stated that the current code allows 10 signs, but with the increased code enforcement, it works out to no signs. The proposed code language states two signs, “per business.” It is unrealistic to expect the business of say John L. Scott to operate with only two signs allowed for open houses. The City Council is concerned with a concentration of signs, but the restricted hours will lead to a concentration of signs. This amendment limits speech by limiting signs and hours they may be displayed. The City Council envisioned a three step process, with the first step being a “quick” amendment to allow A-board signs. He suggested the amendment be changed from all portable signs to just A-boards. The right-of-way is a public forum. He is asking that it be given back to the public by allowing signs to be placed in the right-of-way. Signs help people sell homes quickly, which is needed in this economy. Lisa Cooke Tinsley – She works for Prudential. She feels the code should also apply to political signs. They should have to follow the same laws. Scott Collins – He has had signs pulled this year and feels it is a waste of time for him and City employees. Dan Wingard – Agrees with what has been said. This is a great City and wants to be known as serving the community. The suggested changes to the code will do that. An email from John W. Jocobi was distributed to the Commissioners. Commissioner Bronson commented that it appears people have been in violation of the sign code in the past because of confusion of what is and is not allowed. Mr. Fewins commented that the City has developed a handout with a graphic showing the area of the public and private right-of-way and where signs can be placed. Commission Bronson stated that he has a problem with defining the hours as from dawn to dusk because it is imprecise. Sunrise to sunset has a quantifiable limit and he would prefer that the term sunrise to sunset be used instead of dawn to dusk. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 3, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-03-08.doc Mr. Fewins commented that the City choose the hours 10:00 to 3:00 because employee hours are until 5:00 and it would be difficult to pick up illegal signs and deliver them to City Hall before 5:00 if the hours went later than 3:00. Commissioner Long noted that there is no distinction in the proposed amendment between real estate signs and those of other businesses. Mr. Fewins replied that is correct. The City must be fair to all and the amendment would apply to all businesses in the City. Commissioner Carlson commented that there seems to be a feeling among audience members that the City is taking away the number of signs they can display for an open house. This is not the case. If this amendment were to be approved, they would still be allowed the 10 off-site signs and 1 on-site sign they are currently allowed and in addition will be allowed 2 signs on the public right-of-way, for a total of 13 signs. He would not want all businesses in the City to be allowed six signs in the public right-of-way. He feels the size stated in the proposed amendment is fine because some businesses may want signs larger than those typically used by real estate agents. He feels the hours of sunrise to sunset would be appropriate. Signs should not be allowed in the planter strip for pedestrian safety. Commissioner Elder commented that she sympathizes with the audience. She was once a Realtor and she would place her Saturday open house signs on Friday evening. She opposes more restrictions and believes the industry can police itself. In regards to political signs, the City treats them the same as all signs. She had a number of her political signs removed until she learned the proper place to put them. She agrees that it can be difficult to find houses in some of the City’s neighborhoods. She feels the comments made are common sense, but the proposed amendment affects more than just real estate signs. Commissioner Drake commented that more regulations do not necessarily solve problems. Does the City have statistics for how many sign violations occur? Are they industry specific? Mr. Fewins responded that the City does not have those statistics, but he can say that recently, City employees picked up 90 signs in one day (not all were real estate signs). Enforcing the code is a secondary duty for employees, with the main duty being building inspections for example. The City does respond quickly to safety violations. Commissioner Bronson commented that he feels the proposal limits business to two signs. It is not realistic for agents to ask people to place signs on private right-of-way. He has no objection to allowing more signs in the public right-of-way as long as there are no safety problems. Rhonda Sims – She commented on the graphic provided to show where signs can and cannot be placed on the right-of-way (utility corridor). She said it makes sense on paper, but is difficult to figure out in the real world. Sam Pace, South King County Association of Realtors – He commented that the history with the City has been that at first signs were allowed in the right-of-way; now they are not. He is concerned that the language in the proposed amendment says, “per business,” which could be taken to mean only two signs for an entire real estate business. He stated that in some areas, access to property outside of the right-of- way does not exist. He feels this amendment could create a liability by limiting speech. He suggests no limit to the number of signs allowed on the public right-of-way and to regulate them by stating what is not allowed, such as not attached to trees, telephone poles, etc.; not blocking the sidewalk, driveways etc.; and not a safety problem. He supports hours of sunrise to sunset only if an agent is on site. The South King County Association of Realtors could police the sign program by educating brokers by letter (and they do respond to letters from the Association). If the City proposes a reasonable sign code with fines (as described above), they would support it. Alisha Little – She owns a tanning salon along Pacific Highway South and complained that even though her sign is on private property, it is still picked up. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 3, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-03-08.doc Commissioner Long asked what the implication to the City is if a business places a sign illegally and someone gets hurt. Mr. Walls replied that generally, if the City is unaware of a problem, then the City is not liable. Commissioner Drake asked if freedom of speech is an issue. Mr. Walls replied that the City may regulate as long as the City is neutral and consistent. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the staff recommendation with the addition of a definition of the term “open house” to be prepared by staff and the following amendments (indicated by double underline and strike-out): 22-1599 Permits. … (d) Permit exceptions. … (2) Exempt signs. A sign permit is not required for the following signs or modifications to signs; provided, however, that such signs shall comply with all of the following requirements: cc. Portable signs located in the public right-of-way subject to the following standards: i. Signs shall not be affixed to the ground, including through the use of stakes or other means that may damage property; ii. No more than two signs shall be allowed per business or event, and no person (including any agent thereof) may have more than two signs at any one time, except that eight open house signs may be permitted per business, event, or agent; iii. Sign area shall not exceed six square feet per sign face or nor 36 inches in height; iv. Signs shall be allowed only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. sunrise and sunset and must be removed each day; v. Signs shall not be placed on or attached to other objects, including but not limited to buildings, structures, trees, plants, utility poles, utility boxes, utility equipment, or other signs of any type; vi. Signs shall not be located on the travelled portion of a roadway, in parking lanes, on sidewalks, in bicycle lanes, or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle, bicycle, wheelchair, or pedestrian travel or views; and vii. Signs shall not be placed in street medians or street side planter strips. Alternate Commissioner King suggested that open house signs be called real estate open house signs. Commissioner Elder commented that there are different kinds of open houses (such as for day cares) and the City needs to include all businesses in the proposed amendment. Commissioner Medhurst expressed concern regarding #vii. A street side planter strip may be the only available place to put a sign. The Commission voted by a show of hands. There were three no and four yes; the motion passed. Chair Pfeifer commented that if there are no objections, the public hearing on the proposed portable Signs Code Amendment will be closed. There were no objections and the public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 3, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-03-08.doc AUDIENCE COMMENT Dorothy Long – She commented that at one time she followed the man who picks up signs. She said he has a issue with Realtors and it shows. This is Commissioner Drake’s last Planning Commission meeting. He has been with the Commission for 10 years (he started and ended with a sign code issue). He has enjoyed being on the Commission, but he needs to free up more time since his work takes so much of his time. He thanked the City staff for all of their hard work. Chair Pfeifer thanked Commissioner Drake from the entire Commission for all of his hard work. He will be missed. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.