Planning Comm PKT 02-22-2012City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 22, 2012
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Coun cil Chambers
AGENDA
- 1: CALL TO ORDER '
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 1, 2012
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
• PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Amendments Related to Allowing Signs for CitySponsored
Civic or Community Eventsin the Public Righ�of-Way
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN
Gommissioners City Statf
Merle Pfeifer, Chair Tom Medhurst, Vice-Chair Patrick Doherty, Director of Community & Economic Development
Lawson Bronson Wayne Carlson Margaret Clark Principal Planner
Hope Elder .Sarady Long E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
Tim O'Neil 253-835-2601
tin�ietvnn,cetyo ederalwuy_com
K:�Planning Commissiod201 I Wgenda 0242-12.dce
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMM1SSlON
February l, 20]2 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Tom Medhurst, Tim O'Neil, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long.
Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Wayne Carlson (both excused). Staff present: Planning Manager
Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shu11, Associate Planner Matthew
Herrera, Assistant Planner Becky Chapin, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, 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 December 7, 201 l, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
ELECTIONS
Commissioner Medhurst nominated current Chair Pfeifer to continue as chair. There were no other
nominees. Chair Pfeifer was voted to continue as chair. Chair Pfeifer nominated Commissioner Medhurst
as vice-chair. There were no other nominees. Commissioner Medhurst was voted in as vice-chair.
PUBLIC HEARING — Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Senior Planner Shull and City Traffic Engineer Perez delivered the staff report. The proposed Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan will be a stand-alone planning document, as well as serve as a basis to update the
non-motorized section of the Transportation Element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan at the time
the annual update is done. One of the purposes of the plan is to improve the health of Federal Way
citizens by increased access to safe and convenient bicycling and walking facilities. Staff sought public
input through a survey and a social media site (EngageFederal Way); the site received over 1000 hits and
many left comments and discussions. In addition, staffrecruited a 20 member advisory committeeto help
develop goals and objectives and a proposed network. Finally, staff sought technical assistance from SvR
Design Company and Alta Planning + Design.
The overall goal is to enhance community livability, health, and transportation by providing a connected
system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network. T'here are
five goal categories:
K:�Planning Commission\20I !\Meeting Summary 02-01-12.doc
Planninb Commission Minutes Pa�e 2 February l, 2012
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Netrvork and Support Facilities — Develop a network that allows for safe
and convenient movement throughout the city and to the regional network.
• Safety, Security, and Equity — Provide safe connections between neighborhoods, business centers,
parks and recreation facilities, and schools, and consider the needs of all residents, especially
those who do not have access to private vehicles.
• Transportation and Land Use — Consider adjacent land uses and their potential to generate
walking and biking travel when determining where walking and cycling improvements are most
needed.
• Education and Awareness — Open the lines of communication so t�at all users of the
transportation network have improved awareness of the need to share the roadways and trails, and
recognize and observe traffic safety laws.
• Maintenance and Operations — Ensure that biking and walking facilities are kept in good
condition and work well for the intended users.
Mr. Perez went over the existing condition of the city's bicycle and pedestrian facilities. He stated we � �
have a network, but it is incomplete. The city has used Level of Service (LOS) as the methodology for
measuring the performance of roadways. This methodology is based on perspective of automobile drivers.
The Complete Streets policy recognizes the importance of considering all roadway users; therefore, the
analysis method used in this plan is a Multimodal LOS (MMLOS) analysis is based on all roadway u'sers
(bikes, foot traffic, etc.).
The plan proposes to add an additional 66 miles of bicycle facilities to the existing network. There will be
a variety of facility types added. Not all desired bike route corridors can be retrofitted to add dedicated
bicycle facilities.
The plan proposes to add an additional 72 miles of pedestrian facilities to the existing network. They will
mostly consist of sidewalks in areas identified as designated safe walking routes to schools. The plan also
proposes to incorporate new trail facilities.
This is a long-term plan — we will not be able to create this network overnight. The approximate cost (in
today's dollars) for the entire proposed network is $ l40 million. The city must research what funding may
be available. In addition, the city will utilize prioritization criteria to determine priority projects for
inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as part of
the formal comprehensive plan update process.
Commissioner Long recused himself from voting because he is the Senior Transportation Planning
Engineer for the City of Federal Way. He participated in the discussion. T'here was no public testimony.
Commissioner Long asked ifthe plan takes safety improvements into account and whether safety
improvements can be added without lowering the level-of-service. City Traffic Engineer Perez responded
that the plan does take safety improvements into account, especially in regards to turning vehicles at
intersections. They have researched such issues as right-turn on red and omitting the flashing yellow
when pedestrians are in the crosswalk. Commissioner Long asked if they researched allowing an
exclusive pedestrian phase at a traffic signal just forpedestrians to cross in all directions. City Traffic
Engineer Perez responded that was considered. There would be tradeoffs. Such a system would increase
the cycle length. It would be di�cult to enforce a no right-turn on red under such a system and it could
lead to more rear-end collisions.
Commissioner Medhurst asked of the proposed cost, how much is currently funded. City Traffic Engineer
Perez replied that the city currently spends approximately $8 million annually that could be used for
design and construction of ali transportation facilities. The city will apply for appropriate grants to help
with funding.
K1Planning Commission\201 IVNeeting Summary 02-01-12.doc
Planninb Commission Minutes Pabe 3 February 1, 2012
Cornmissioner Bronson asked how effective is the right-turn on red? Does it add to the flow of traffic?
City Traffic Engineer Perez responded that it is difficult to say for certain. Right-turn on red can cause
conflicts with pedestrians, but there are likely to be more conflicts with right-turn on green only. From the
perspective of the driver, right-turn on red is a safer move. Commissioner Long asked what is the state
law regarding allowing bicycles on sidewalks. CiTy Traffic Engineer Perez replied that the state leaves it
to the city to decide and Federal Way allows bicycles on the sidewalk. Chair Pfeifer asked what is a
reasonable timeline for these projects. City Traffic Engineer Perez responded that first they must be
funded and that is very difficult under present circumstances. The state is collecting less revenue from the
gas tax for road projects. The state is considering other ways of raising funds, but there is a lot of
politicking that will take place before any new funding source is approved. Commissioner Long
commented that this plan does not appear to have any stand-alone bike projects. City Traffic Engineer
Perez replied that it is a mix of stand-alone and capital projects.
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seeondec� to recommend approval of the proposed Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan as presented. There was no further discussion. T'he motion carried unanimously
with one recused. The public hearing was closed.
PUBLIC HEARING — Twin Lakes Commercial District Subarea Plan
Associate Planner Henera delivered the staff report. The proposed Twin Lakes Commercial District
Subarea Plan provides a blueprint for the neighborhood's future growth, development, and redevelopment.
The proposed plan will allow the city to be holistic in its approach to planning in the area, as opposed to
piecemeal zoning code amendments. If adopted, the proposed plan will become an element of the Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan. It is intended to be a"living document" that will be changed if the vision, goals,
and values of the community evolve with future generations. Staff sought public input through a survey,
public workshops (that were well attended and generated many ideas), and a social media site
(EngageFederal Way); the site received over 1000 hits and many left comments and discussions. Staff sent
out press releases and mailed notices to businesses in the proposed subarea. A stakeholders group of
business, civic, and neighborhood representatives was created to advise staff. In addition, staff sought
technical assistance from CPPW grant consultants SvR Design and CollinsWoerman.
The overall vision of the proposed subarea is a neighborhood scaled commerce center that will contain
improvements that are unique, attractive, viable, accessible, safe, and prosperous. There will be improved
facilities for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit users, and opportunities for healthy food access. The proposed
plan consists of four goal and policy sections:
• Building & Si�e Design — Create an environment that is conducive to increasing foot tr�c,
supporting diversified economic development, and providing a safe, visually interesting
and vibrant experience for visitors and residents of the subarea.
• Economic Development & Redevelopment — Create strategies for developing new businesses
using existing assets, and promote land use strategies that provide opportunities for
entrepreneurship and focus on retaining local businesses.
• Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility — Enhance community livability, health, and transportation in
the subarea by providing a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is
integrated into the citywide and coordinated regional networks.
• Headthy Eating & Food Access — Encourage existing businesses to provide healthy food
options and improve access to healthier food choices. Expand opportunities to grow,
market, distribute, and consume locally grown food.
K1Planning Commission�201 IUbteeting Summary ti301-I2.doc
Planninb Commission Minutes Pabe 4 Februar�� 1, ?O1?
City staff suggests using a form-based code to achieve the vision. This "Form-Based Code" approach to
community design will ensure development in the subarea provides amenities that are attainable and
desired locally. Designing a form-based code is an intensive process and the city would need to have a
group dedicated to designing it. A form-based code is a more illustrative document that provides
predictability. It shows potential developers up-front what a building would be expected to look like.
The meeting was opened for public comments.
Lori DeVore, Readtor, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Chair — She
thanked the staff and city for their work and the opportunity to comment on tlus issue. She feels
the staff is open and responsive to the needs and wants of the community. She feels the proposed
plan provides what people want and that it will beautify the subarea. The proposed plan will
provide safe streets for bicycles and pedestrians and will ease traffic issues. She is proud of
having been a part of the development of this plan. �
Thom MacFarlane — He also thanked the staff for the process. The workshops were well attended
and generated a number of good ideas. He asked how this plan will occur. Also, he had heard
discussion at the workshops in regards to green design (specifically grey water), but nothing has
been said this evening about incorporating green design.
Sheryl Sanderson — She had attended the second workshop. One issue that concerns her is calling
the proposed subarea a destination location. She is concerned this will lead to more people and
traffic. She is also concerned that mixed-use (specifically the multi-residential aspect) will lower
home values.
Public comment was closed. Associate Planner Herrera responded to the issues raised. In regards to how
this plan will occur, there will be a chance for additional public input during the City Council committee
and City Council meetings. Once adopted, implementation would be through the zoning code amendment
process and additional input will be sought during this stage. In regards to green design, while he did not
mention it, green design is part of the proposed plan. In regards to the proposed subarea becoming a
destination location, staff does not want to detract from the City Center being the city's main destination
location. Any traffic increase that might occur due to any particular project would be mitigated as part of
that project's land use review. In regards to mixed-use zoning, Associate Planner Henera as not seen any
evidence that mixed-use zoning adversely affects property values.
Commissioner Long asked if the proposed plan considers height increases. Associate Planner Herrera
replied that it does not specify height increases. The plan identifies that mixed use development will
require the need for a height greater than the 35-feet currently allowed. Height increases would require a
zoning code amendment. Staff recommends, with community guidance, a desired height somewhere
between 35 and 65 feet. Commissioner O'Neil asked about many buildings and land is vacant. Associate
Planner Herrera responded he does not have this information. Commissioner Medhurst asked if there are
infill opportunities. Associate Planner Herrera replied not much. Parking lots might be infilled, but the eity
would have to change the parking code. Currently the number of parking stalls is based on the need for the
day after Thanksgiving. One could ask does the city realty need to plan to meet the need of one day.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that on page 16 of the proposed plan it talks about exploring the use
of zoning incentives. How would this work? Associate Planner Herrera stated that for example, the city
could allow a building to increase their height if they include a roof-top garden, or a usable (with benches,
etc.) plaza. Commissioner Long asked if the public would be able to comment on any proposed projects.
Associate Planner Herrera commented that a number of the city's land use review process call for public
comments.
K:1PlanningCommission�201IVNeeting Summan�02-01-12.doc
PLannina Comrnission Minutes Paae 5 February 1, 2012
Commissioner Bronson thanked the staff for their work and commented he supports the proposed plan,
but he is concerned with the name. This area is not Twin Lakes. Associate Planner Herrera stated they
heard the same complaint from the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association. The city chose the name Twin
Lakes because many businesses in the area have Twin Lakes in their name (such as the Twin Lakes Post
Office). At the request of the Twin Lakes HOA, staff attempted to differentiate the subarea from Twin
Lakes proper by titling it the Twin Lakes Commercial District Subarea Plan. Staff did not hear much from
anyone else regarding the use of Twin Lakes.
There was additional discussion about forrn-based codes. Principal Planner Clark noted that the city
would have to give direction for form-based codes to be used.
Commissioner Long moved (and it was secondea� to recommend approval of the proposed Twin Lakes
Commercial District Subarea Plan as presented. There was no further discussion. The motion carried
unanimously: The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The next Planning Commission meeting l�as been rescheduled to February 22, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Hylebos Conference Room (located next to the Council Chambers).
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
K�.�I'lanning Commission�201 1 Wfeeting Summary ObOI -{ 2. doc
��� ,
�.,
����II�� .:k�:r
:.
i� :�.� IR �:
� �
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOl�
Proposed Amendments Related to
ALLOWING SIGNS FOR CITY-SPONSORED CIVIC OR COMMUNITY EVENTS
IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(Non-Project Action)
File No's: 12-100453-00-SE & 12-100452-00-UP
Planning Commission Meeti►g of February 22, 2012 �
I. BACKGROUND
In their January 28, 2012, Council Retrea� the City Council requested that staff prepare a code
amendment to allow banner signs on structures over the righ�of-way and on street pole banners in
the right of-way for City-sponsored civic and community events.
II. REASON FOR CODE AMENDMENT
Numerous important civic and community events such as the Olympic Dive Trialsand the Buds &
Blooms Festival, occur throughout the year in the City of Federal Way.Many resider�ts as well as
people from out of town attend these events.These events are publicized in local papers and on the
City's website. Allowing banners in the righ�of-way should result in increased exposure and
visibiliryofthese events.
III. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.140.130, only governmental signs and portable
signs are presently allowed in the public righ�of-way. This code amendment would allow for
banners and street pole signs in the righ�of-way for City-sponsored civic and community events.
The draft code amendment language isattached as Exhibit A. Language proposed to be deleted is
shown as st�eetrt and proposed new language is shown asunderline. The following is a summary:
1. There are approximately 160 street pol� along South 320�' Street and Pacific Highway South
and there are 80 City logo banner� one on every other pole. Therefore, a✓ery other street pole
can accommodatean event banner. Minor adjustments would be needed to change out hanging
baskets for banner rods.
2. The City would construct ove�the-street structures whichwould consist of two poles on either
side of the road, one or two poles in the median, and a cable between the poles
3. Banners could only be used for City-sponsored civic and community events.
4. A City permit woulcl be required for each event banner, or alternatively, the Public
Works Director coulcl authorize one blanket permit for all events.
A right-of-way permit and traffic control plan would be required for installation of
banners.
6. The Public Works Department would produce a specification sheet that lists the size
and dimensions of the banners as well as acceptable materials.
7. The duration of a banner will be on a cas�by-case basis as determined by the Public Works
Director:
IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
2/03/12 Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
2/17/12 End of SEPA Comment Period
2/22/12 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
3/02/12 End of SEPA Appeal Period
3/06/12 Adoption of the Ordinance
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments were received as of the date of this report.
VI. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWRC Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Council Rezones," esta.blishes a process and criteria for
zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning
Commission is as follows:
1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments.
Banner Signs
Planning Co�mnission StafF Repor[ Page 2
2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets th�riteria provided by
FWRC 19.80.130.
3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code
text amendrnent.
VII. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWRC 19.8U.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following sectionnalyzes the
compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.8U.130.
The City may amend the text of the FWRC only if it fi�ds that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan.
The proposed FWRC text amendmenfi are consistent with the following FWCPgoals and
policies:
EDGS The City will encourage and support the development of recreational and
cultural facilities and/or events that will bring additional visit�to Federal
Way, and/or increase visitor spending.
LUP6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to
improve upon the permit review process.
EDPIl The City will promote the community by working with the Federal Way
Chamber and the private sector to develop marketing tools that attract new
businesses, visitors, and investments.
EDP18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to
adjust plans, policies, and programs.
2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare.
The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a relationship to the public health, safety, and
welfare because the amendments willprovide for banners over and within the righ�of-way,
which will assist in attracting attendees to local civic and community eventsThe success of such
events contributes to economic development and make�he community a more vibrant and
interesting place to live and visit
3. The proposed amendment is in the best inte�est of the residents of the City.
The proposed FWRC text amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City
because banner signs will help to attractattendees to City sponsored civic and community
events; thus, enhancing the City's regional image as a desirable community offering a high
quality environment for living and working.
Banner Signs
Planning Com�nission titafl'Report Page 3
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the code amendment as outlined in Section➢[ above and enclosed as
Exhibit A be recommended for approval to tle City Council.
IX. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Cansistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the
following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments:
1. Recommend adoption of the FWRC text amendments a recommended by staff;
2. Modify the staffrecommended FWRC text amendments and recommend to the City Council
adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified;
3. Recommend to the City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or
4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to the City Council without a recommendation.
ATTACHMENT
E�chibit A— Federal Way Revised City Code Chapter 19.140, "Signs," with Proposed New Language
K:�2012 Code Amendment�.Banners in R-O-W�Planning CommissiorlPlanning Commission Staff Report.doc
Banner Signs
Planning Co�nmission Staft Report Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Federal Way Revised Code
Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code"
Chapter 140, "Signs"
19.140.070 Temporary and special signs.
No permit for any sign for any civic event, community service event, cit,�ponsored civic or
communi event, special sale/promotional event, grand openings, mural display or scoreboards shall be
issued unless such sign complies with the sign type, maximum number, ma�cimum sign face area,
maximum height, location, duration and all other allowances and limitations for those uses described in -'
Table 1, "Allowances for Temporary and Special Signs — Permit Required."
(Ord. No. 07-573, § 49, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(14)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 06-523, § 3(Exh. A), 418-
06; Ord. No. OS-487, § 3, 4-19-05; Ord. No. 05�86, § 3, 4-19-05; Ord. No. 99-357, § 5, 12-7-99; Ord. No. 99-348,
§ 5, 9-7-99. Code 2001 § 22-1599(e).)
19.140.120 Tabtes of sign allowances.
Table 1
Allowances for Temporary and Special Si�ns — Permit Required
Sign Applicable Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum
Purpose/ Location Remarks
Description Zones Allowed Number Sign Area Height
Civic event All Wall- Handled Off-site Five feet On site and 30 days prior
or mounted on a case- signs, except wall- off site to the event.
community banners, by-case excluding mounted Remove
service temporary basis wall- signs within five
event portable mounted days of the
(temporary) signs, banners, may close of the
inflatable be no larger event
advertising than six
devices, square feet
seazch lights per face. On-
and beacons site signs and
wall-
mounted
banners may
be no larger
than 32
square feet
per face
Civic event All Freestanding One per The total sign Monument Nonresidential Electronic
or monument site area of signs: six zones: on/off changeable
community or wall sign freestanding feet. site. message signs
service monument Freestanding Residential allowed.
event signs shall signs: 12 zones: on site Signs cannot
(permanent} not exceed feet. Wall only contain
64 syuare signs shall commercial
feet for the not project messages
total of all above the
FWRC. "CiUc 19, Chapter 140 Page 1
Table 1
Allowances for Temporary and Special Si�ns — Permit Required
s Applicable Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum
Purpose/ Zones Allowed Number Sign Area Height Location Remarks
Description
faces and no roofline
one face shall
' exceed 32
square feet.
Wall signs
shall not
exceed seven
percent of the
exposed
` building face
to which it is
attached
Citv- All Street pole Handled In In Mounted on Permissible
sponsored banner or on a case- accordance accordance ci street , vi .
civic or over-the- bv-case with with poles or over- annlication to
communitv street banner basis �ecifications snecifications the-street the director of
event provided bv provided by banner Public Works
�temporarvl the director the director structures in in accordance
of Public of Public the ri t-of- with
Works Works � denartment
s�ecifications.
Duration
decided on
case-by-case
basis.
Special sale/ Nonresidential Banners Handled Handled on a Handled on a On site. Special
promotional zoning only on a case- case-by-case case-by-case Banners must promotions:
event (e.g., districts by-case basis basis be attached to 90 days total
anniversary basis an exposed per calendar
sale, etc.) building face year. No more
than four
events per
year. Dces
not include
window signs
Grand Nonresidential Banners, Handled Handled on a Handled on a On site. Grand
openings zoning temporary on a case- case-by-case case-by-case Banners must openings: 30
districts portable by-case basis basis be attached to days. Event
signs, basis an exposed must occur
inflatable building face within 60
advertising days of
devices, occupancy
search lights
and beacons
Mural Nonresidential Painted Handled Handled on a Handled on a Handled on a
display zoning mural on a case- case-by-case case-by-case case-by-case
districts by-case basis basis basis
basis
f�'RC. Titic 19, Chapter 140 Page 2
Table 1
Allowances for Temporary ancl Special Signs — Permit Required
Sign Applicable Sign Type Maxiroum Maximum Maximum
Purpose! Zones Allowed Number Sign Area Height Location Remarks
Description
Scoreboards All Electronic Handled Handled on a Handled on a Handled on a
(athletic changeable on a case- case-by-case case-by-case case-by-case
fields) message by-case basis basis basis
sign basis
19.140.130 Prohibited signs.
The following signs or displays are prohibited in all zones within the city. Prohibited signs are subject
to removal by the city at the owner's or user's expense pursuant to FWRC i9.140.190:
(1) Abandoned or obsolete signs. ,
(2) Animated or moving signs.
(3) Banners, except as expressly allowed pursuant to Table 1 and FWRC 19.140.060(6).
(4) Billboards.
' ' ° (5) Dilapidated, nonmaintained signs. ' ` ' ' '' `
(6) Flashing signs, except electronic changeable message signs or changeable copy signs.
(7) Inflatable advertising devices, except as expressly allowed in FWRC 19.140.070.
(8) Mylar balloons.
(9) Obstructing signs which obstruct or interfere with free access to or egress from a required exit from
a building or structure.
(10) Off-site signs except those expressly allowed in this title.
(11) Pennants, streamers, ribbons, spinners, whirlers, propellers, festoons, blinking lights, or similar
items that attract attention through movement, reflection or illumination unless expressly allowed
pursuant to Table l of this chapter.
(12) Portable signs except as expressly allowed in FWRC 19.140.060.
(13} Real estate signs providing information other than the name of the development and that the
subject property is for sale, lease or rent, such as signs which only announce the features or amenities of
the subject property (i.e., features such as indoor pool, hot tub, fireplaces, skylights, covered parking, free
cable, laundromat services, community centers, etc.).
(14) Signs in a public right-of-way except signs for governmenta} and city-sponsored civic or
communitv events sag�s, and e�se}� portable signs that follow the reyuirements of FWRC 19.140.060(29).
(15) Roof signs.
(16) Simulations of traffic signs. Any sign using the words "stop," "look," or "danger," or any other
words, symbols, or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead, or confuse pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
(17) Snipe signs.
(18) Vehicle signs including any sign attached to, or placed on, a parked vehicle or trailer used
principally for advertising purposes, rather than transportation, but excluding signs relating to the sale,
lease, or rental of the vehicle or trailer and excluding signs which identify a firm or its principal product
on a vehicle operated during the normal course of business.
(Ord. No. 08-583, § 3(E�ch. A), 10-21-08; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(14)), 5-15-0'7; Ord. No. 07-550, § 3[4], 3-
20-07; Ord. No. 06-523, § 3(Exh. A), 4-18-06; Ord. No. OS-486, § 3, 4-19-05; Ord. No. 99-357, § 5, 12-7-99; Ord.
No. 99-348, § 5, 9-7-99; Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6-6-95. Code 2001 § 22-1600.)
K:�2012 Code Amendments\Banners in R-O-VI�SEPA\Exhibit A.doc
FWRC, 1'itle I�, Chapter 140 � Page 3