Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Moore, and Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors Wylie and Ralston were absent (excused). 1. Sign Code Revisions. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced David Bowlsby and noted Mr. Bowlsby's work on the Sign Code. Building Permit Technician David Bowlsby presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of this update was primarily to address housekeeping of the current code, to make necessary changes to update code references and provide adjustments to and clarification for use of this code. This update also had the goal of addressing possible modifications to Temporary Sign permit requirements to accommodate businesses during the current economic state. In light of recent conversations and complaints regarding temporary sign permits, Council may want to discuss options to accommodate businesses by waiving or suspending temporary permit fees for a defined period. Discussions to provide this relief should include method(s) of adoption (ordinance, etc.) and sun setting of the decision to be reviewed at a later predetermined date. Councilor Woodrow said she received a phone call today regarding the Sign Code. The owner of Vino and Vango was not allowed to have anything on her window per NEDCO. She had asked if she could use a sandwich board when she had classes to let people know where she was located. If not a sandwich board, she had asked if there was something else she could use. Mr. Bowlsby said that was an obstacle for many businesses. He was charged with dealing specifically with what Council had adopted in the past. With the current code, she would need to get a temporary sign permit for the sandwich board. Currently, there was not an exemption for that. Councilor Woodrow said she would like to see this addressed to allow sandwich boards more often. Mr. Bowlsby said that was a request he received often. A change to the; current code (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet) grouped all temporary signage into one category. The length of time temporary signs were allowed was specific in the Code. By combining the temporary signage, they could use the signs four times a year rather than only two times. During a study of revenues and temporary sign permits, he found that many businesses would take advantage of the extra days allowed with the temporary signs combined. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 21, 2012 Page 2 Mayor Lundberg said the reason they wanted the Sign Code discussion now was to look at suspending those regulations through the end of the year and then see if those changes should remain. Councilor Pishioneri said he was interested in promoting business, becoming more business friendly and removing some barriers. He wanted to allow two sandwich boards per business for an unlimited number of times per year with no permits. He didn't see that in the amendments. Mr. Bowlsby said he had outlined three options. One of those options was to allow people to have one portable sign or banner, year -round with no permits required. Additional signs would require a permit. Another option was to look at the housekeeping changes in the Sign Code, but also to look at how to work with the businesses by setting aside the fees and enforcement of temporary signs to a date certain. He noted section 8.218(3) (page 27 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet) which reworded the section regarding temporary, signs. Two signs could be allowed if that was Council's direction. Ms. Murdoch said they could suspend those regulations through a resolution or in the Sign Code. Mayor Lundberg said they had all received calls about signage and the regulations of temporary signs and sandwich boards. She had suggested a moratorium, or suspension of certain signs for a specific amount of time through the end of the year. Councilor Pishioneri had suggested parameters such as two sandwich boards per business. During that period of suspension, the City would ask for feedback -from businesses and the community. They could then look at the Sign Code in .a. broader way near the end of the year to look at making specific amendments. Councilor Pishioneri felt it was wise to go through the permitting process without the fees so the City would know where the signs were located. The business community needed to know about the suspension for specific signs. He didn't want to make it cumbersome for staff. The suspension could be for two sandwich boards per business of a specific size, through the end of the year. Mr. Bowlsby said he agreed with that and felt it would accommodate the businesses. He was concerned, however, about the right -of -way issues on the sidewalk, especially in_ downtown. There could still be some code enforcement issues regarding right-of-way and accessibility issues. He supported not charging, but felt a balance was needed. Some standards needed to be set regarding size of the signs and placement on the sidewalk. There would still be some oversight, but those details could be worked out. Councilor Moore asked if all Sign Codes were so long. It was noted that many were even jonger. She would like to see a simplified pamphlet that could be provided to business owners. Mr. Bowlsby said he had put together a pamphlet similar to what she was suggesting at the direction of the Mayor. Mr. Laudati had worked on that pamphlet as well. It had been out for distribution and staff had received positive feedback. Councilor Moore asked about section 8.128(1) regarding "complete set of plans" and "engineering calculations ". She asked if those were by a certified engineer. Mr. Bowlsby said in circumstances where engineering was required, it needed to be done by a licensed practicing engineer. That would include signs greater than 20 feet tall or with other circumstances governed by the Building Code or Structural Specialty Code. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 21, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Moore said if the setback section of code was maintained, it already prohibited signs in the public utility right -of -way. She spoke about the setback and asked how sandwich boards could be allowed with the setback. Mr. Bowlsby said it would depend on the location. Some properties were large enough for the sign to sit within the setback area. Downtown there was very little area, so there was not a means for them to meet this guideline to set the sign back from the property line. If they had an inset, they could, through an amendment to the Sign Code, place the sign in that location. Councilor Moore asked if Councilor Pishioneri was thinking of placing the signs in the right -of -way on the sidewalk. Councilor Pishioneri said he was looking at doing this globally throughout the City. There were other businesses outside of downtown that had the same issue. Downtown businesses were crucial and he felt if the sidewalk was 10 feet wide, the signs could fit in that area while still being ADA compliant. He wanted to find out how we could make it work whenever possible. When it couldn't work, that was understandable. This would need to be looked at case by case. Mr. Bowlsby said Section 2.201 provided authority to staff to address the situations and gave staff the tools for reasonable application. That language was in all other sections of Code he administered. He felt that section could be used to work with businesses to try to find a solution. Councilor Woodrow said this, should be presented to businesses that the City was willing to suspend the regulation and allow it until the end of the year as a trial. It would be a benefit to businesses if they would show responsibility and be a partner in this trial. If it worked well, this could be something that could continue. Many businesses would like to put out sandwich boards and would want to know the requirements so they could continue. Councilor VanGordon spoke regarding the language regarding temporary signs. Some people would like to have something long -term. He asked if it was possible to simplify the entire Sign Code document. Mr. Bowlsby said it was possible, but would take a considerable amount of time. Councilor VanGordon said he would like to be able to shorten it to make it easier for businesses. He agreed that we should provide this trial period with the sandwich boards. He understood the compliance issue with right -of -way use, etc. and suggested staff provide photos of how to place the signs for more challenging properties. Mr. Bowlsby said there were a couple of options to consider, such as an annual permit for temporary signs. There were some jurisdictions that did that, some with fees and some without. Although perhaps premature, he had also suggested a general business license. Part of the benefit of the general business license could include an allowance to have a temporary or portable sign as part of the permit. That provided another tool for code enforcement. Part of a business license needed to be a benefit and more opportunity to advertise their business. This was just one option. Councilor VanGordon said consistent enforcement was difficult. He asked about the security deposit on signs and what percentage of those were generally refunded. City of Springfield . Council Work Session Minutes February 21, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Bowlsby said they refunded the majority of the deposits, although some people got their permit without their deposit. Some people forfeited their deposit if they forgot to remove their signs. Councilor VanGordon asked if the security deposit helped or hindered in code enforcement. Ms. Murdoch said it was a helpful tool for code enforcement as it kept the businesses mindful of the time limit for their signs in order to get their deposit back. Councilor VanGordon said he supported the trial period. One concern he had was that a business might invest in signs during this specific time period that would no longer be allowed at the end of the trial period. Councilor Woodrow said sandwich signs were not expensive. Even if they went back to permitting, that business could use their sign with a permit. She asked if the Code started out large or had grown. Mr. Murdoch said it had started out small, but had grown due to things that had come up over years. Councilor Moore asked about the cost of a permit. She noted a penalty fee and asked what those cost. Mr. Bowlsby said currently the fee for banners and portable signs was $225. Of that amount, the deposit was $100. If the business followed the rules and removed the signs at or before 30 days, they would get $100 back leaving a net cost of $125. If the City sent a warning citation to a business that did not have a permit but displayed signs, the business had the opportunity to obtain a permit in one of two ways: 1) satisfy code enforcement with a single fee of $115 with no deposit and remove the signs; or 2) the business could come in and purchase the permit for $225 allowing them to have the remainder of the 30 days (starting from the date of the warning letter). If they removed the sign after that 30 day period, they would get the $100 deposit back. 3 Councilor Moore said the letter was not actually a warning, but was a penalty. Mr. Bowlsby said the warning was that if they did not come in to obtain a permit within a specified number of days, they would be fined per day. Ms. Murdoch said some businesses in the past used to get a warning, take down their signs, and then put them back up shortly after. They continued that pattern without having to pay. Councilor Moore said if they were a first time offender and received a letter, it was more like a penalty fee. She understood charging a fee to someone who repeatedly violated the code. Mr. Bowlsby said he understood. Some people had asked for a new business packet for new businesses. The City didn't currently have the benefit of that first point of contact because we had no general business license. Without that tool, staff needed to rely on business owners to be truthful. Councilor Moore said she could understand the charge if it was their second warning. She. felt the first warning should just be a warning. Mayor Lundberg said the purpose of tonight's discussion was to look at suspending the sandwich board regulation during a period of time, then take a closer and more deliberate look at the rest of the Sign Code. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 21, 2012 Page 5. Ms. Murdoch said it was so helpful to get Council's feedback. Often times, they did forgive the first warning, and they did try to get this resolved. They tried to be careful in how they worked with businesses. They would like to talk to Public Works about placement of sandwich boards on the sidewalks. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin said the right -of -way issue should not affect the Council's decision tonight. Many cities allowed sandwich boards along their sidewalks. One of the challenges of the Main Street sidewalk was that it was the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) right -of -way. Ms. Murdoch reminded the Council that the City had to be content neutral about what the signs had on them. She noted that the City was currently taking in about $11,000 per year for temporary signs. ' Councilor VanGordon asked. if the suspension was strictly on sandwich board signs. Yes. He felt as more feedback was received, they could look into a guide for new businesses similar to what Mr. Bowlsby had created. The information could be put on the website. Mr. Bowlsby said customers were more receptive knowing what they could do within the guidelines. If the Council authorized the suspension, word of mouth among businesses would get that information to the public. Staff would be receiving a lot of phone calls and customer contact. They needed to determine where and what size for the parameters. Once that was determined, he felt it would be received positively by the business community. Councilor Pishioneri would still like staff to come up with a business package for those that got a business license or paid an annual fee. The package would be a welcome to Springfield with information on what the business could do with the license /permit and who to contact. He would like this type of package in place sometime before the end of the year. Businesses that did not buy the package would not be able to continue doing the same things regarding signs after the suspension was over. Mr. Towery reviewed Council direction regarding tonight's topic. He confirmed that Council was fine with staff bringing forward the ordinance with the housekeeping amendments in the Sign Code to a public hearing and subsequent action. Yes. In addition, the Council would like to allow "x" number of sandwich board signs for the balance of the calendar year without permit or fee required. He asked how many sandwich boards the Council would like to allow. After some discussion, Council said two sandwich boards per business. Staff would determine a `standard' size to be allowed. Mr. Towery said staff would come back to Council near the end of the year with input from the temporary suspension for sandwich boards. They would also do a more in -depth review, specifically of the temporary sign portion of the code, but possibly a deeper review. He wasn't sure what Council wanted them to review more closely. Councilor Moore said she wanted the Code to be simplified. Councilor Woodrow said it was important that when looking to simplify the Code, they didn't lose things that had been added to resolve specific issues. Some of the language could be simplified, but some of the other areas may not be able to be reduced. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 21, 2012 Page 6 Councilor VanGordon agreed. He wanted a conversation about how they could simplify the Sign Code and have some brainstorming. If the Code was a simple as they could get it, he was fine with that, but if it could be simplified more, he would support that. Councilor Moore appreciated that staff had prepared a pamphlet for businesses. Mr. Bowlsby said that was the Mayor's idea and was a great idea. Councilor Pishioneri said in addition to. looking at the suspension at the end of the year, he would also like to have a plan in place of where to go next to address business and City needs. He would like to see some type of package that could continue the benefit of the steps they were taking now. Mr. Towery suggested they separate that issue from the Sign Code because that topic was much broader in terms of the different areas of the organization that would be involved. Councilor Pishioneri felt this was a good opportunity to bring forward that discussion. Mr. Towery said this issue was in front of Council due to the temporary signs. If there were other parts of the Code Council had concerns about, he encouraged the Council to let staff know so they could provide information on why certain sections were included in the Code. He also asked them to let staff know of calls from citizens about the signs. Councilor Woodrow said she would like to know that businesses would be told that this suspension was to take us to the end of the year for re- evaluation, but was also to look ahead at long -range planning. Mayor Lundberg said the City recently simplified SDCs for a period of time and was now adding this to help businesses. Signs allowed businesses to advertise themselves. The. City managed to allow tables on the sidewalk, so she knew we could do this as well. She was very optimistic that at the end of the year they would have good direction from this experience. She appreciated all of the work done by staff. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: amq j � A, Amy SoNO City Recorder