Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-24-1995 P&Z MINUTES � � MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CALDWELL CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Meeting of April 24, 1995 Present: City Council: Mayor Richard Winder, Elaine Carpenter, Rita Earl, Chuck Houchins, Jerry Langan, Garret Nancolas Planning & Zoning Commission: Madeline Buckendorf, Dorothy Davidson, Sonia Huyck, Terry McConnell Staff: Dennis Crooks, Darrell Mayes, Robert Vasquez, Liz Yeary Public: Dale Andersen, Rick Eardley, Keith Eisberg, Steve Jarvis, Gary Vance The special meeting of the Caldwell City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Mayor Richard Winder at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Winder asked Mr. Crooks to explain the purpose of the Work Session. Mr. Crooks stated that two years previously the City Council had authorized an investigation into the sign regulations to resolve ambiguities, clarify existing regulations and update the sign review process. Part of that process would include identification and preparation of procedures for enforcement. Some of the reasons cited in support of sign regulations include: 1. The issue of public safety, i.e., to ensure signs do not restrict vision at intersections or travelways, nor impede pedestrian and vehicular traffic; the structural integrity of signs and setbacks for signs. 2. The ability to address equitable sign exposure for all businesses to ensure new or additional signs were not blanketing an area. 3. Aesthetics - promotion of an attractive pleasant-appearing streetscape, and interesting community design but recognizing a need for businesses to be able to identify or advertise their services. A Sign Committee was organized which produced a draft interpretation of the existing sign ordinance. The City Council considered the item in June of 1994. However, there were still many unanswered questions about the regulations and the issue was tabled indefinitely. Section 12-11-01-03 of the Caldwell Municipal Code has adopted the Uniform Sign Code. There is also the Sign Schedule. The Uniform Sign Code requires a building permit process. The majority of signs do not go through the permit process. Those sign requests that are presented to the City initially go through the Planning and Zoning Department who issue a clearance to make sure it complies with the Sign Schedule and they then go and apply for a building permit. Darrell Mayes commented that their fees are based on square footage of the sign itself. Illuminated signs are 10¢ per square foot and non-illuminated signs are 5¢ per square foot. MINUTES 42495 Page 1 � � Dennis said that copies of other sign ordinances have been obtained from various cities in Idaho. In compa.rison to the other communities the City does not have a document that addresses the broad range, variety and types of signing we are asked to review and approve. The City is beginning to receive some correspondence and complaints about the installation of certain types of signs at various locations. Staff is looking for some direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Do we continue as previously instructed by the City council? Do we resunect the draft Resolution of Interpretation? Do we try and develop a new sign ordinance from the beginning? There is an amendment in process dealing with the R-3 zoning district and signs for professional office uses. Garret Nancolas asked how we can get illegal and non-confornung signs to comply with present guidelines. We need to upgrade our sign ordinance but also take a step to clean up those signs which do not meet the code. Dennis said that perhaps we should develop a new ordinance guided by other cities' e�usting ordinances. Garret suggested beginning again because trying to rewrite something often takes more time than working from nothing. Madeline commented that it has been a struggle to get this far. She felt that because of growth and development something needs to be done right away. The ordinances are very vague. Rita said that we need to look at introducing a moratorium on some of these signs, to identify signs that are inappropriate or illegal and offer an appropriate amount of time to address them. Terry commented that we need to amend the one ordinance. He felt that to get rid of old signs we would probably have to work with the City Attorney. Rita asked Dennis about signs that are considered incidental uses on property. Dennis said that they can be amortized. If a sign ordinance recognizes those signs as nonconforming, a time frame can be set up for those signs to be brought into conformance. Nampa has an amortization clause. It is double- tiered based on the size of the sign and value of the sign. Within that time frame property owners have to bring the signs into conformance with the Code, either with modifications, or full replacement. Ganet commented that he felt we need to rewrite the majority of the ordinance but is concerned that it would take too long and to make minor changes in the code was a step in the right direction. This would also give people more of an opportunity to become involved in the process. Madeline said that the process for change takes too long and we are not ready to prepare a new ordinance. Meanwhile what do we do in terms of enforcement? Garret said what about signs that are illegal. Would they have to go through an amortization? Dennis said that for the staff to determine a sign is conforming or non-conforming is fairly simple. If it is illegal it is more difficult. We can enforce the ordinance for signs currently in the right-of-way. Signs put up recently without a pernut we can enforce. In most cases we are not going to be able to MINUTES 42495 Page 2 � come up with a fair conclusion whether or not a sign is illegal. We can begin to address some signs which pose a threat to safety. One of the things Council was asked to do was to prioritize what kinds of signs to enforce. In the downtown areas many communities atlow smaller sandwich type signs to be placed outside businesses. Jerry Langan said that signs that pose a safety problem and in the public right of way should be enforced. Chuck Houchins said that we need to do something. He felt businesses benefit a great deal from sign advertising. With a 13.5' sidewalk, a 30" sign is not an obstruction and generates about $6,000 business per year. Reasons for tabling the item in the past are that we are undertaking something unmanageable. If it is not enforced properly, it will not work. What are the consequences of not complying with an ordinance? Most businesses do not want an unattractive sign. We also need to address temporary signs but the main priority should be safety. Dennis asked Chuck if he thought the downtown area would be in favor of a provision for A-frame type signs. They can be controlled with a sign permit. In Nampa when a permit is obtained the applicant is told where it can be placed. Mayor Winder said that the permit process can be changed, and people will be kept informed. We need to evaluate areas where we do not have provisions for a particular type of sign and make provision for freeway type signs, sandwich type signs. To maintain the business we have we need to be able to encourage people to use those businesses and the way to do that is with signage. We have to recognize that not everyone sees signs as being bad. Madeline commented that tastes change over time and maybe what was attractive earlier on or economically conducive to the market will not necessarily be so at another time. Do we take time and money and do an educational workshop where some alternatives are given showing examples of good signage? Chuck said that real estate companies may use unattractive signs but every ordinance has a clause in there for real estate, allowing one sign per property. They can go to a bigger sign. This is considered part of doing business in a community. They can be advised that we would like for them to keep it to a certain size or certain height and keep these things in mind when you place it. Mayor Winder said people are trying to come to a conclusion for improving downtown, including signs but it is not yet organized. Garret said that we are dealing with two different sets of circumstances. With a temporary or movable sign that is not going to be a permanent type structure there are different rules and regulations. Signs are very important. We need to realize that temporary things are a different circumstance than ermanent. Peo le who use si ns use them in a safe mann r i p p e a.nd t does not detract g from other businesses around them. But it will require that we work together as a community. MINUTES 42495 Page 3 � . I r Sonia Huyck said that until they know it is going to be enforced we will be tested constantly. Enforcement is a necessity. Simple rules are not sufficient. Businesses have a right to know what will be enforced. We will need to ask for their input and come to a compromise. The Mayor said the City is looking at enforcing traffic regulations in the city and see if we can get funding for at least one additional officer and we might see what do we do with Planning and Zoning enforcement. Is it adequate to have an untrained law enforcement person out there? Madeline asked where do we have loopholes in the ordinance that need to be fixed. We need to define temporary signs, safety, and adopt clear rules on billboards. Dennis said that safety is the top priority which we could adopt as a matter of policy or direction. Concerning signs in the right of way some are clearly not appropriate because of safety reasons. Chuck commented that if the ordinance is changed, we should include an amendment right now that all signs from such and such a date will be by permit only. Rita said that the ordinance has to be enforced. Gary Vance, Superior Signs, agreed. The first thing is to decide what a sign is. Exterior signs, all signs, wall mounted signs, freestanding signs. Is a sign permit necessary? There has to be some way to define this. Chuck suggested we look at the Nampa ordinance which addresses readerboard, temporary and portable signs and time periods. We can also elimina.te some of the signs that are out there now. It was generally agreed that the Resolution of Interpretation be put back on the agenda and then systematically go through the Ordinance. If Nampa's Sign Ordinance works, we could use it as a basis for amending our Ordinance. Chuck commented that most of the concern is outside signage. Rick Eardley, Idaho Outdoor Advertising, said that it might be appropriate to adopt an interim ordinance spend some time using it and then adopt it as an ordinance i.e. create the questions and come up with an ordinance. The Council has to look at something for the city to work with and look at how we clean up what is already out there. The Mayor said when the zoning ordinance was adopted people approached the Planning and Zoning Department about allowing only one sign in an R-3 zone. Steve Jarvis, Idaho Outdoor Advertising, said that in the course of doing business he is constantly asked, "will a sign block my sign". He feels it is a lot easier to put up a sign and risk no enforcement. That is why there are such grim signs. MINUTES 42495 Page 4 . � e Chuck said we need to be aware that we have an opportunity as far as the Boulevard is concerned, because of cunent improvement plans, signs there will be moved. This is our opportunity to improve that corridor. Rita said that most of the offending signs on the Bouleva.rd are in the Area of Impact. Sonia said there needs to be public awareness of what is going on. Madeline commented that enforcement of the ordinance will make Caldwell more economically attractive. Mayor Winder agreed stating that it will signify to all that the community of Caldwell cares about what Caldwell looks like. Mayor Winder said that the City has been trying to get this ordinance redone for two years. Dennis works hard with the public and gives out and gets all the information he can from the public. We can get that input from sign people and the general public then at the hearing process there will be less contention. Rick Eardley volunteered to work with an off-premise ordinance to get something going. With no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �, ��� � Liz Yeary, Recor ing Secretary MfNUTES 42495 Page 5