2017-02-22 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 22, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5 h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Daniel Robles
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Malia Clark, Student Representative (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board
Member Lovell asked for an update on the City Council's discussion relative to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Mr. Chave
answered that the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 21s`, but no action was taken.
PUBLIC HEARING ON MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE WITH A FOCUS ON PEDESTRIAN
SIGNS
Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted amendments to the Edmonds sign code (ECDC 20.60) on August 2, 2016.
The amendments covered a variety of minor code adjustments, with the most substantial changes dealing with "pedestrian
signs." Since the code was amended, the business community has provided additional feedback, and staff is suggesting a few
modifications. He reviewed the issues, which are summarized in Attachment 1, and explained how they could be addressed
by the potential amendments outlined in Attachment 3.
Cost. The business community has expressed concern that the fee for pedestrian sign permits is too high
considering the size and scale of the signs. The current fee for blade signs is $75, and the current fee for pedestrian
signs is $125. A technology fee of $35 would also apply, so the total fees would be $110 and $160, respectively.
Although fees are set by City Council resolution and do not fall under the purview of the Board, the Board could
certainly forward a recommendation that the City Council consider reducing the pedestrian sign fee to match the
blade sign fee or reduce fees for both blade and pedestrian signs even further.
Sign Area. As per the current code, pedestrian signs are now considered "permanent" signage and count against the
overall sign area a business is allowed. However, based on the Director's interpretation (Attachment 2), pre-existing
signs can be "grandfathered" so that they do not count against allowed sign area. One option to address concern
would be to retain the current situation with the grandfathering of pre-existing signs. The second option would be to
memorialize the "interpretation" into the code. A third option would be to amend the code so that pedestrian signs
do not count against sign area. While the latter approach would be consistent with the old code, there are potential
implications. If pedestrian signs do not count against the total sign area, there would be incentive for everyone to
have one. Currently, the only signs that do not count against the overall sign area are true temporary signs and blade
signs. The intent is to encourage businesses to use blade signs, which are very visible, instead of pedestrian signs
that can end up impeding pedestrian access. The question the Board should consider is whether or not the City
wants to encourage pedestrian signs, or simply make them one choice a business can make, but not something they
automatically default to.
Location. Currently, pedestrian signs must be located within 10 feet of the building entrance and within 2 feet of
the building fagade. Deviation from the 2-foot requirement requires Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval at
a cost of ($915). It is likely the City Council did not understand how time consuming and costly ADB review
would be. Two options the Board could consider include: 1) allowing for a variation from the 2-foot requirement to
be approved as a staff decision, which carries a cost; or 2) giving the Development Services Director more discretion
or latitude when pedestrian signs are approved by using the following language: "The sign shall be located within
10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within two feet of the building. The Development Services Director
may approve an alternative location under the following circumstances: a) An alternative location in front of the
building or on the property occupied by the business is less intrusive to pedestrian movement or accessibility; or b)
The building containing the businesses is set back from the property line and a location on the property can be
provided such that the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk. " As proposed, the Director would have the
ability to approve alternative locations that meet one of the two criteria listed above as part of the sign permit,
without any additional cost to the applicant.
Out -of -Sight Businesses. Currently, all commercial signage is tied to the business location, which means that off -
site commercial signage is not permitted. This has always been the case for legal reasons. If signs are allowed to be
placed off -site, the City could end up with a lot of pedestrian signs clustered in highly -visible locations. Discussions
with the business community included the concept of having some type of directional signage that would show
people there are other businesses off the main streets. However, the current code does not allow this type of signage
as governmental signs. The proposed amendment would authorize the Development Services Director to work with
another governmental agency to develop and implement a directional sign program. He explained that the
amendment is not intended to describe what the sign program would look like, since the details have not been
worked out yet. Careful thought is needed, and one possibility would be for the City to work with the Business
Improvement District (BID) to come up with a more formalized way -finding program. As written, the program
could be implemented without attaching a permit process.
Chair Rubenkonig recalled that, when discussing the amendments that were approved in August of 2016, the Board
emphasized that blade signs and window signs are the preferred option for signage, and do not count towards the overall sign
area allowed. She asked if the City Council indicated support for this approach, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively.
Chair Rubenkonig also recalled that the Board spent a lot of time discussing the term "portable" rather than "pedestrian."
She asked if the City Council expressed a preference for the term "pedestrian." Mr. Chave said "pedestrian" was the term
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 2
used in the Board's recommendation to the City Council. He explained that "portable" is a much broader term, and
"pedestrian" is more specific. Chair Rubenkonig clarified that pedestrian signs would still be considered portable because
they are not attached to the building.
Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of Edmonds since 2001 and a business owner in Edmonds since
2007. She, along with Tracy Fraker, Pam Stuller and other small business owners, have been collaborating with Ms. Hope
and Mr. Chave, on amendments to the sign code requirements for pedestrian signs. She thanked Mr. Chave and Ms. Hope for
their solution -oriented approach. One specific solution that was offered was to have staff review the sign code using specific
guidelines, which could lower the costs tremendously versus the ADB review ($915). As a small business owner, she said
she appreciates being able to share her voice with the Planning Board and City Council.
Ms. Rosenfelt explained that small businesses create an economy in Edmonds, as well as a community for Edmonds residents
and tourists to frequent. The A-board/stand-up signs create curiosity to attract and draw people in to the businesses. They
jump out to people and say, "Hey, look at us over here." She said the sign for SNAP Fitness actually speaks to what her
business offers, such as various classes and world -class personal trainers. When people coming into the gym ask how they
heard about them, 95% of the prospective members answer that they saw the sign.
Ms. Rosenfelt pointed out that there are many businesses in downtown Edmonds that are in recessed buildings or have
recessed doors, which does not work with the current code of having signs within 10 feet of the front door. In the case of
SNAP Fitness, the 10-foot mark is right at the column of the building, which places the sign in the sidewalk. This will not
work, as it blocks pedestrian traffic. She currently has the advantage of using the corner triangle at 5th and Walnut for the
sign, which does not intrude into the sidewalk or the pedestrian walkway. There are other businesses that have unique
circumstances, as well. For example, Bountiful Home and Garden is in a recessed building and 10 feet from their door is
right in their yard, and True Value is on the side street and does not have any visibility without a sign on the corner.
Mr. Rosenfelt said she would also like to speak to a bigger issue that encompasses all small businesses in Edmonds. They
need support and help from the City and community in order for them to be in business and to prosper. They need signs to
draw attention to their businesses; signs that jump out and say, "We're here. Come visit and check us out." She closed her
comments by reading an article that was written in THE EDMONDS BEACON on January 19th. The article spoke to the IGA,
which was having to be replaced because it was just not making it after being in Edmonds for just a couple of years. In the
article, Bob Sanders, suggested that if you want a little store to stay in Edmonds, you have got to support it and that is where
the City failed. Nathan Brown also voiced concern about the constant draining away of services and local businesses in
Edmonds and the need for the community and City to support them.
James Spangler, Edmonds, recalled that when the City Council approved the current sign code in August of 2016, there was
a last-minute consensus or attempt to make a concession to the small businesses in the community by including the ADB in
the process. However, it was not really clear at the time that the associated cost of this review would be $915. The City
Council thought it was doing something that would enable the code to work better for businesses with unique situations, such
as buildings that are set back from the street. He asked that the Board recommend the City Council eliminate the requirement
for ADB review and replace it with the language recommended by staff. The Development Services Director is in a position
to make decisions relative to unique circumstances. As currently written, the code does not allow these businesses to
adequately represent themselves to the community.
Mr. Spangler said it is important to understand that, once a person gets out of his/her car, there is no way for them to find
small businesses in the downtown. The sign he places in front of his business would probably not be allowed under the
current code language. Yet almost every day, someone thanks him for the sign or they would never have found the store. He
noted that pedestrian signs can be found in every major city in the world because they are needed and customers appreciate
them. While the concept of portable directional signs sounds like a great option for letting pedestrians know what businesses
are located down the street, the Board should keep in mind that a number of older people work in the downtown, and
requiring them to roll out these heavy signs every morning would be difficult. A fixed direction sign would be a better
solution.
Natalie -Pascale Boisseau, said she is the owner of the Innate Health Clinic, Innate Radiance, at 420 — 5th Avenue South.
She said she was present to speak on behalf of her clinic and the practitioners working in her clinic, as well as on behalf of
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 3
Mollie Boyce, a massage therapist also located in the same building. She explained that their businesses are "by
appointment" services only, and they both use their own pedestrian signs when they are open, which often occurs at the same
time. Their signs do not obstruct traffic, as the entrance to their building is wide and the signs can be placed on their property
and not in the sidewalk. The signs are also clean and elegant. Both of the businesses are located inside the building, with no
window or direct entrance on the street. The entrance to the building is set back from the right-of-way, as well. It is difficult
for people to see when the businesses are opened and where they are located. Limiting the number of pedestrian signs to just
one per building would limit their visibility to the public in an unfair way. Two signs are needed when both of them are
working at the same time. She summarized that there is space for the signs along the beautiful entryway that is protected by
an awning. Placing the signs near the sidewalk would not impede pedestrian traffic, and would actually make the situation
safer by preventing people from tripping on an uneven surface near the sidewalk. She asked that the Board consider staff s
recommended language relative to location. This option would likely apply to her businesses since there is more than 10 feet
between the sidewalk and the building entrance. She also asked that the Board consider allowing more than one sign per
building. Without pedestrian signs, people would be unable to find their businesses.
Vice Chair Monroe commented that Ms. Boisseau's building seems like the perfect location for blade signs to advertise the
businesses inside. Ms. Boisseau said she is very happy with her pedestrian sign, which describes her qualifications and the
services she provides. Pedestrian signs provide space to advertise more than just the name of her business. A blade sign
would not offer the same benefit. Mr. Chave explained that blade signs can either hang down or project out from a building
in different variations. People walking along the sidewalk will likely notice pedestrian signs more than the blade signs that
hang overhead.
Tracy Felix, Edmonds, said she owns Art Spot, an art supply business on Main Street near 4th Avenue. While she does not
currently have a pedestrian sign for her business, she became involved in the project because she is very concerned about the
business community as a whole. When the sign code was amended in August, business owners tried to be compliant and
removed their pedestrian signs. The merchants networking through the Downtown Edmonds Merchant's Association (ED)
found that businesses suffered immediately after the pedestrian signs were removed. It was reported that the reduction in
business was as much as 20%, which is substantial over time. The businesses that are located off the main streets suffered
the most. She expressed her personal belief that Edmonds needs to have a business district growing and being vibrant on the
side streets, as well as the main streets.
Ms. Felix referred to the options outlined in the Staff Report, which were well written and succinct. She said it is her
understanding that the Board does not set or approve fees, but she hopes they could at least recommend to the City Council
that the fees for pedestrian sign permits be $50 all inclusive. Businesses have already paid sign permit fees at their start up,
so this is an add -on fee to comply with the new code. As far as sign area, she recommended Option 3, which would not
include pedestrian signs as part of the overall sign area a business is allowed to have. This would be consistent with how the
City handles blade and window signs. Including all new pedestrian signs in the overall sign area allowed, would result in
inconsistencies between the signage for existing buildings and the signage for new buildings. It makes more sense for
everyone to have the same rules going forward, which means that pedestrian signs would not be part of the overall
calculation of allowed sign area.
Regarding location, Ms. Felix said she supports the proposed language that would allow the Development Services Director
the discretion to approve alternative sign locations for unique situations. She also supports the concept of creating a
wayfinding sign program. She advised that Clayton Moss, who has helped the City with other sign projects, has volunteered
to work with the City and ED to develop and implement a directional sign program. The signs could be elegant and simple,
and placed at the corners to direct people to the businesses located down the street. In addition, ED has indicated it is open
to receiving grant requests from the businesses to create the wayfinding signs. However, she cannot put forward a grant
request until the City code is amended to allow a directional sign program to be considered. She said she would like leeway
to start putting together a grant application and come back later with ideas for what the program might look like. A
directional program would be a practical way of getting a cohesive look in the downtown.
Ms. Felix referred to Mr. Spangler's earlier comment that the wayfinding signs should be permanent rather than portable.
She said she also supports wayfinding signs that are permanently placed so they are consistent and do not get stolen or
vandalized. Permanent signage would allow more control over the exact location and placement.
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 4
Don Hall, Edmonds, said he has owned a business in downtown Edmonds for 20 years, and he has been through a lot of sign
code changes throughout that time. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendments may be the best ones ever
presented to the Board and City Council for approval. His only concern is related to the directional sign program. How will
the City determine how close a business needs to be to the main drag in order to qualify for a directional sign? He suggested
that criterion needs to be provided to tighten the provision to prevent future arguments about why a directional sign can be
placed at one corner and not at another. The code must be as fair as possible for all people.
Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to clarify the area where the proposed amendments would apply. Mr. Chave answered that the
amendments would apply in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Chair Rubenkonig noted that this is a broad area
that includes more than just the immediate downtown. In addition to retail businesses, it also includes mixed -use commercial
and residential uses.
Mr. Chave explained that the details of a directional sign program are yet to be determined. The proposed code amendment
would simply authorize the program. It was not staff s intent to define the program as part of the code amendment. The
details of the program will need to be discussed and worked out over time. The intent was to keep the code language broad
to enable a wide -range of options to be considered.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, based on a Supreme Court decision, signs cannot be regulated based on content.
Therefore, a business could display a pedestrian sign to advertise a different business that is located further down the street.
While the sign code regulates how many signs are allowed per business and where they can be located, it does not regulate
what the sign says. There is flexibility for businesses to work together for signage placement. Chair Rubenkonig asked if
window signs could also be used to direct people to another off -site business, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively.
Vice Chair Monroe asked if blade signs are required to be attached to the building or if they could be attached to a pole in
front of the building. Mr. Chave answered that he would need to research this option further, but his immediate reaction is
that blade signs need to be attached to the building. He explained that businesses in the downtown are allowed to have one
monument sign, including monument signs on a short support. However, they count against the overall sign area allowed.
Board Member Cheung asked if there would be a process by which a business owner could appeal a decision made by the
Development Services Director relative to location. Mr. Chave answered that there would be no appeal process, but the
business could request reconsideration. Board Member Cheung asked if there would be specific guidelines or if the decision
would be discretionary. He also asked if a new director would have the authority to revoke the previous director's approval
of a pedestrian sign. Mr. Chave answered that the approval cannot be rescinded unless the sign no longer abides by the
provisions of the original decision. The proposed amendment is intended to provide specific criteria so the intent is clear.
City staff is always careful to avoid situations where arbitrary decisions can be made.
Chair Rubenkonig asked how the proposed alternative relative to location would impact businesses in the McDevitt Building,
the Dayton Place Building, and the Harbor Square Building at 120 West Dayton. These buildings have multiple entrances
and sit back from the right-of-way. Mr. Chave answered that businesses located further back from the right-of-way could
identify, through the process outlined in the amendment, that the pedestrian sign could be placed in the space located further
than 10 feet from the building without impeding pedestrian traffic. While the sign could not be placed on the sidewalk in
front of the building, it could be placed adjacent to the sidewalk.
Board Member Crank said she has talked to a number of business owners in the downtown, as well as people who come to
downtown Edmonds to shop. Those who are opposed to pedestrian signs appear to have one thing in common, which she
agrees with to a certain degree. There seems to be a dialogue that the pedestrian signs are the "make or break it" for
downtown businesses; and if they are not allowed to have them, all the businesses will fail. She agreed that pedestrian signs
are vital to businesses, but she hopes there will be additional conversation by ED and the Chamber that includes other
marketing opportunities such as mobile apps that people can use to locate businesses rather than relying solely on signage.
There are other options for marketing, beyond pedestrian signs, that will add to the vitality of the businesses in downtown
Edmonds. A diverse group of people visit the downtown every day, and many of these visitors rely on their smartphones.
However, there does not appear to have been any discussion about how to capitalize on this additional marketing opportunity.
Rather than continuing to focus solely on signs, they must consider what else can be done to make businesses viable.
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 5
Although the Board does not have purview over permit fees, Board Member Crank said she supports lower fees. She
commented that it is important to leverage out the costs in a way that is equal, fair and accessible for all businesses involved.
As far as sign area, she supports the current language that counts pedestrian signs as part of the overall sign area allowed.
She also supports the staff s proposed language that would give the Development Services Director discretion relative to sign
location. Not all situations are the same, and it is impossible to have a regulation that addresses every circumstance. The
proposed amendment allows City staff to interact more with downtown merchants when making these decisions.
Board Member Crank asked if arrow signs pointing to businesses located further down the street have been considered as part
of signage in the downtown. She noted that they are becoming a popular option in other downtown communities, and they
should be considered as part of the conversation about how to bring visibility to businesses in addition to pedestrian signs.
She reminded the Board that ED hired a media person to build a web presence and do other marketing through technology.
Board Member Robles thanked the staff for putting together a comprehensive sign code proposal, but commented that it is
extremely long. He recalled that, early in the process, an idea was brought forward that would have reduced the document to
3 or 4 pages, but it was declined. He proposed that the City minimize the cost of all sign permits. Requiring ADB review is
not acceptable, and there must be a provision for staff to approve deviations from the code under certain circumstances. He
suggested the language go one step further and expand the Director's role to that of arbitrator. The system is designed to be
gamed, and those who are more savvy can take advantage.
Board Member Robles suggested that the City could use the technology fee to provide an on-line map of the businesses in the
downtown. There are also other inexpensive technology options that could be considered. In addition to an on-line map, he
suggested the City could also provide a printed map. He noted that the Chamber is limited in its ability because it only
addresses people who pay into the group. Providing on-line and printed maps would result in a public good regardless of
whether a business participates in the Chamber or not.
Vice Chair Monroe commented that the intent or goal of the proposed amendments is to balance the businesses' needs with
the needs of the citizens of Edmonds. Citizens will not do well if there are closed businesses, and businesses need people to
support them. He would like the City to promote blade signs over pedestrian signs, which is what the current code language
and fee attempts to do. He suggested that the current fee for pedestrian signs be maintained. If it is lowered, the fee for blade
signs should also be reduced or eliminated. He also supports code language that counts pedestrian signs as part of the overall
sign area allowed. He agreed that the $915 fee for ADB review is excessive, and he supports the alternative language
proposed by staff that gives discretion to the Development Services Director. He supports the concept of creating a
directional sign program, but felt the program should be better defined in the code language.
Board Member Cheung expressed his belief that the current fees for blade and pedestrian signs are too high. He supports
lowering the fees, but he also agreed with Board Member Crank that the City should try to promote other options for
marketing businesses in addition to pedestrian signs. He understands why businesses feel that pedestrian signs are necessary.
However, as a consumer, the first thing he does is go on-line to locate a particular business. The City should support and
encourage other forms of advertising. He commented that he finds blade signs are more attractive than pedestrian signs.
However, they appear to be important to businesses to attract customers, and the City should support rather than deter them
from promoting business. He said he believes the Development Services Director can use good judgment to determine if an
alternative location would be more appropriate without requiring a costly ADB review.
Chair Rubenkonig recalled the Board's earlier discussion that the content of a blade sign could be swapped out so that a
business could advertise a sale or other special event, etc. Mr. Chave agreed that would be possible.
Board Member Lovell commented that signs are important to the City, the businesses, the citizens, and visitors. It is
important that residents of Edmonds support the downtown merchants, and the City Council did the right thing by placing a
hold on implementing the new regulations to get a better hold on what is going on and provide more opportunity for public
involvement. He reminded the Board that people want a walkable area, which is what the downtown/waterfront area is
supposed to be. Although blade and window signs are helpful, the merchants believe that pedestrian signs are vital to the
success of their businesses. He suggested that the City should come up with an interim solution until such time as a
directional sign program is in place and ready to be implemented.
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 6
Board Member Lovell supported the proposed amendment that would get the ADB out of the sign business, and the permit
fees should be kept as low as possible. He also supports the concept brought forward by Board Members Crank and Robles
relative to technology opportunities that might be used for marketing. He summarized his belief that staff did an incredible
job in putting together a package of sign code amendments that ameliorate the concerns brought forward by the business
community. In particular, he supports the proposed language put forward by staff that would allow the Development
Services Director discretion to make decisions relative to location to address unique circumstances.
Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board had a discussion about establishing a "clear zone" of 44
inches, and staff proposed some draft language for their consideration. Mr. Chave said staff is now proposing different
language that references the Street Use Permit (ECDC 20.70.030(C) to determine the amount of clear area that must be
maintained rather than repeating the variations and criteria in the sign code.
Chair Rubenkonig explained that the sign code must be amended in order for the City to consider a wayfinding sign program.
Mr. Chave advised that, to address this issue, a new section (Governmental Signs) is proposed in ECDC 20.60.075. The
language would authorize the Development Services Director to work with an entity, such as the BID, to come up with a sign
program. Vice Chair Monroe asked who would pay for the sign program, and Mr. Chave answered that it has yet to be
determined.
Board Member Lovell asked about an interim solution until the sign program has been developed and implemented. Mr.
Chave said the proposed language would not prohibit an interim program, but the only way to put a sign off site is to work
out an agreement with another business owner. Board Member Robles suggested that the public should be notified of this
ability, and Mr. Chave agreed it could be integrated into the handout that describes pedestrian signs. The remainder of the
Board concurred that this is a communications issue rather than a code issue, and business owners should be notified of this
option, which has always been available to them.
Mr. Chave summarized that the majority of the Board appears to support a lower fee for pedestrian sign permits. They also
appear to support a provision that grandfathers in existing pedestrian signs, but requires all new pedestrian signs to count
against the total sign area allowed. The Board has indicated support for the provision that would allow the Development
Services Director discretion to vary the location of the sign as per the language provided in the Staff Report, and they also
appear to support the additional language related to "governmental signs."
Vice Chair Monroe voiced concern about treating blade signs and pedestrian signs equally. If the City's intent is to
encourage blade signs, then it would be appropriate to have a higher fee for pedestrian signs. Board Member Robles
cautioned against allowing fees to get out of control. The citizens' pockets are sacred and should not be reached into for
punitive reasons. Raising the fee should be the last resort rather than the first. He felt there are other ways to incentivize the
City's preference for blade signs over pedestrian signs. Unfortunately, other options that would accomplish this goal were
previously rejected. On the other hand, pedestrian signs on the sidewalk consume public space and are more detrimental to
citizens than the blade signs, and there should be some cost associated with using the sidewalk. He commented that the
distribution of public goods is largely the responsibility of the City, and there are many ways to accomplish the task that are
not monetary. Business owners already pay taxes, and this should be considered and worked into the scheme. They should
also keep in mind that the money that goes into a business comes back in more tax revenue for the City. Therefore, he is not
sure how productive it would be to "nip at the beginning to take away at the end."
Board Member Cheung said he would support reducing the cost of a pedestrian sign permit to $50 and then make the blade
sign permit free. Otherwise, the fee comes across as punitive. He suggested that the best way to encourage blade signs is to
not count them as part of the overall sign area allowed. Vice Chair Monroe agreed that sign area could be the tool the City
uses to encourage blade signs over pedestrian signs.
Regarding the issue of punitive fees, Mr. Chave explained that the intent of fees is to allow the City to recover its costs. To
the degree that fees are lowered below cost, the City is providing a public subsidy or benefit to process that particular
application because it is in the public good. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that the cost of the sign permits vary, yet
the staff time required to process the permits is likely about the same. While he supports the City charging a fee to cover the
cost of a permit review, the fee should be based on the actual cost of reviewing the application. Mr. Chave said the City's
basic cost structure is $100 per hour, which is what it costs the City in terms of development review and processing a permit.
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 7
That means the total time of everyone who works on the permit. Signage can be really simple or very challenging, depending
on how complicated the application is. The intent is to simplify the sign code and reduce costs. The fee for blade signs and
pedestrian signs is set fairly low because the standards in the code are much more predictable than they have been in the past.
It will be a judgment call for the City Council to determine what is a reasonable fee.
Chair Rubenkonig advised that, although the City Council will make the ultimate decision about which fee option is best, the
Board could recommend that fees be set to incentivize blade signs over pedestrian signs. They do not really need to address
the amount of the fee. The Board generally agreed that blade sign fees should be the lower of the two sign types. It was also
pointed out that blade signs would be further incentivized over pedestrian signs if pedestrian signs count towards the overall
sign area allowed and blade signs do not.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. COST. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE PERMIT COSTS, IN GENERAL, SHOULD BE
MINIMIZED AND FEES FOR BLADE SIGNS SHOULD BE SET AT A LOWER AMOUNT THAN FEES
FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNS.
2. SIGN AREA. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS OPTIONS I AND 2, WHICH WOULD RETAIN THE
CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE GRANDFATHERING OF PRE-EXISTING SIGNS AND
MEMORIALIZE THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION INTO THE
CODE.
3. LOCATION. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THE ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED BY STAFF, WHICH
ALLOWS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES.
4. OUT OF SIGHT BUSINESSES. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW
LANGUAGE IN ECDC 20.60.075 (GOVERNMENTAL SIGNAGE), WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
CREATION OF A DIRECTIONAL SIGN PROGRAM.
VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the extended agenda, noting that the retreat has been tentatively scheduled for April
12th. She advised that she has contacted the Bartell Family, the developer of a mixed -use project at Westgate that is
proposing to include 20% affordable housing, with a request that they share their experience with the Board Members. Other
developers may be asked to participate in the discussion, as well. She anticipates a somewhat open approach so that
developers can share with their ideas with the Board. Board Members will be invited to submit questions prior to the retreat.
Chair Rubenkonig requested information about the public hearing that is scheduled for April 26th, and Mr. Chave answered
that the hearing pertains to a private application to change the Comprehensive Plan Map and potentially rezone a property to
Multifamily -Edmonds Way (RM-EW).
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig thanked the Board Members for their patience going through the sign code. The Board has done what it
could to represent the concerns of the City related to signage.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Monroe reported on his attendance at the recent Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting. He
advised that the EDC prepared a memorandum relative to the proposed sign code amendments, which was attached to the
Staff Report. The EDC prepared a similar memorandum regarding the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, specifically asking for
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 8
more commercial development. The EDC is also working with the City to create a pilot program that would provide more
parking for businesses.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2017 Page 9