Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 11-02-2011 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 11-02-11.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 2011 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Tim O’Neil, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst and Wayne Carlson (both excused). Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Contract Planner Jim Harris, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of October 19, 2011, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen announced that the Shoreline Master Program has received final approval from the City Council. It now goes to the state for final approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – High Profile & Wall Mounted Banner Signs in Non-Residential Zoning Districts Contract Planner Harris delivered the staff report. The proposed amendments are to three sections of the sign regulations pertaining to non-residential zoning districts: (1) allow a third high profile pylon or pole sign for the largest commercial sites; (2) modify the definition of banner; and (3) allow a wall mounted banner as an approved sign type for all businesses in non-residential zones. The rational for the proposed amendments are: they are business friendly code amendments; the high profile sign code amendment would allow five to seven of the largest retail centers (those with most frontage) and a large number of tenants to have a third pylon or pole sign for center and tenant identification; and they allow a wall mounted banner, which would be a potentially less costly alternative for any size business in any non-residential zoning district. The meeting was opened for public comment. Cynthia Stanley Lee, The Commons General Manager – She commented that in order to attract national retailers, The Commons needs to show that it has good sign exposure. She supports the proposed amendments because they will help. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 2, 2011 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 11-02-11.doc Public comment was closed. Commissioner Elder asked what, or who, brought forth the proposed amendments. Planning Manager Conlen explained that The Commons brought forth the issue on the high profile signs due to their new tenants and the need for additional signage. The banner sign issue was brought forth by a small business that needs a more cost effective sign. One reason Commissioner Elder asked the question is because she has requested a code amendment to allow banners over streets, but has not heard anything about it. Planning Manager Conlen replied that staff is aware of the request, but the City Council has not made it a priority on the Planning Commission’s Work Program. Discussion was held regarding the required frontage footage. Under the current code, an eligible site may have one high profile pylon or pole sign if it has a minimum of 250 feet of frontage on one right-of-way. If the site has a minimum of 750 feet of frontage on one right-of-way, they may have two high profile pylon or pole signs. There must be 250 feet of separation between the signs. The proposed amendments would allow the site to have a third high profile pylon or pole sign with 2000 feet of frontage on all rights-of way. Only two signs may be placed on a single right-of-way, the third must be placed on a second right-of-way. For example, The Commons could have two high profile pylon or pole signs along 320th Street and one along Pacific Highway South. In addition, there must be 250 feet of separation between the three signs. Commissioner O’Neil asked if three signs will be adequate for The Commons needs. Ms. Stanley-Lee replied that three signs will meet their needs. Chair Pfeifer commented that a picture of a banner sign would help him make a decision. He asked how the banner signs will be affixed to the building. Will they be required to have a frame? Planning Manager Conlen replied that the proposed amendments say the banner sign must be firmly affixed to the building; the wind should not be able to move it. He envisions this will be done with rivets. They will not be required to have a frame. Chair Pfeifer is concerned that if banner signs are not required to be in a frame, they will soon be in poor condition and unsightly. Planning Manager Conlen stated that the proposed amendment states the sign must be maintained in good repair. Commissioner Long stated that he was also concerned about banner signs being maintained, but after conversations with staff, he concluded that his concerns are addressed and this amendment would give small businesses an affordable choice for signage. Commissioner Elder moved (and it was seconded) to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments as proposed. The motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The next meeting will be December 7th and will be a continuation of the temporary uses proposed code amendments public hearing. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.