2016-03-23 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 23, 2016, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes: March 9, 2016
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Sign Concepts: Focus on Temporary Signs
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
March 23, 2016
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Memo
Meeting Date: 03/23/2016
Subject: Approval of Minutes: March 9, 2016
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Department: Planning Division
Staff Lead:
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB160309d
Packet Pg. 2
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Memo
Meeting Date: 03/23/2016
Subject: Development Services Director Report
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Department: Development Services
Staff Lead:
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Please review and be prepared to ask questions
Narrative
Report is attached.
Attachments:
Director. R e p o rt.03.18.16
Highway 99
March Workshop Flyer —Full -Sheet -Print
Packet Pg. 3
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Memo
Meeting Date: 03/23/2016
Subject: Discussion of Sign Concepts: Focus on Temporary Signs
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Department: Development Services
Staff Lead:
Background/History
The most recent update on development code issues was presented to the Board on February 24th.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss options for temporary sign provisions
Narrative
There is a potential public hearing date of April 27, 2016, on portions of the sign code having to do with
temporary signs. The focus of the discussion thus far has been on free-standing temporary signage, e.g.
A -frame or "sandwich board" signs.
The purpose of this agenda item is to review specific options being considered for the code update so
that we can bring back draft code provisions to the Board on April 13 prior to a public hearing on April
27.
Attachment 1 includes existing sign code provisions addressing temporary freestanding signs. These are
only allowed in the downtown/waterfront area. Key provisions of the current code are:
-- Temporary signs such as A -frames are only allowed for 60 days a year.
-- The signs must be located on the "property street frontage" of the building in which the business is
located.
In practice, the existing code doesn't make it possible to track how long an A -frame sign has been up or
whether it complies with the 60-day time period. In addition, the "property street frontage" standard
doesn't necessarily tie the sign to the actual business location. The code also doesn't place a specific
limit on how many businesses can have temporary freestanding signs along a building frontage.
Attachment 2 includes a poster from the public open house on the code update; this particular poster
dealt with freestanding temporary signs and identified ideas for improving the code. We would like the
Planning Board to discuss several ideas and provide direction to staff on which provisions to include in
draft code language for review at the next meeting (April 13).
1. Should freestanding temporary signs (i.e. A -frames or similar types of signage) continue to be allowed
downtown?
Packet Pg. 4
8.A
2. Should the 60-day provision be replaced with more enforceable provisions, i.e.:
-- Signs only to be displayed during business hours
-- Must have a sign permit
3. Should the signs be more specifically located, i.e.:
-- Must be located within 2 feet of the building
-- Must be located within 10 feet of the building entry
-- Must allow at least 4 feet of clearance for pedestrian traffic (44" is the ADA standard)
4. Should there be limits on how many freestanding temporary signs can be located in front of a
building, i.e.:
-- No more than one (or two) signs per building entry, or,
-- No more than one sign per ground level storefront business
5. Should specific types of signs be permitted or'incentivized'?
-- Stanchion or other non -A -frame signs (e.g. easel) could be required
-- Maximum width of sign could be specified to limit how much sidewalk space is potentially taken up
On #5, note that requiring certain types of freestanding signs -- other than A -frames -- could be more
expensive for a business, but also could add to the visual attractiveness of the signage and reduce the
footprint taken up by freestanding signs.
We look forward to the discussion!
Attachments:
ECDC Temporary Signs - existing code
Temporary Signs from EdmondsDC_Sign_boards_2015-12-16
Packet Pg. 5