DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES

AUGUST 4, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.

Hammond clarified the group would be discussing Issues #1 and #2 today, which deal primarily with sign square footage and how it relates to 3D items on private property. She noted they would be addressing the right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS

Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation to group which reviewed current sign code allocation examples, exempt sign options, examples of 3D signs, and options for 3D objects and representations of merchandise.

City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified there are three types of signs: permanent, exempt, and temporary. Mr. Hank’s clarified businesses are required to go through a permitting process for permanent signage and commented on how the allocation of signage is determined for business located on second and third stories.

Comment was made questioning if the 20% temporary signage allocation was “on the table” for possible revision. Staff indicated yes, and clarified businesses have to change their signs once a week in order for them to qualify as temporary signage. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the purpose of the exempt category is to provide businesses with additional flexibility. He noted they are unable to separate the display of menus from other signage and stated this starts to get into the content issue. Mr. Hanks noted most businesses can achieve their signage goals and still work within the City’s sign code. He added a lot of this depends on how the business decides to divvy up their signage allotment. He clarified “dead space” does count towards the total sign square footage, and noted they would normally draw a rectangle around the wording/image and determine the square footage based on that.

Mr. Hanks asked how the group would like to proceed with exempt signs. Compton questioned if they could remove the limitations from displaying signage in windows. Laws commented that this would drastically change the sign code. Mr. Molnar clarified this is an option; however, it would create conflicts with other sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and could cause a domino effect. Stromberg commented that it seems they are drifting away from their original assignment, which was to recommend some common sense, minor adjustments to relieve some of the businesses current issues. Shostrom stated that it is difficult to picture what is legal and what it not, and stated a before and after picture would help determine which is preferred.

Hammond suggested they come up with a blanket, square footage signage allotment, based on the size of the building, and allow businesses to use if for whatever they want. She stated removing the exempt and temporary categories would make things much simpler and easier to understand. Bussell suggested cutting the sign categories down to two: temporary and permanent. Stromberg commented that simplifying is an attractive option, but it presumes that the existing code was not created through a thoughtful process with lots of expertise. Hammond commented that what they have now is not very enforceable and causes confusion for the merchants. Stromberg recommended they make modest changes to the existing code and then recommend that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look into more extensive changes.

Hammond reviewed Issue #1 and listed the four options for the group. She noted the Task Force tentatively selected Option 4 at their last meeting, which is to allow one of the exempt signs to be three dimensional, and asked if they would like to proceed with this recommendation. Kramer clarified Option 4 would create the opportunity for one, small 3D sign to be placed on private property.  Laws questioned how businesses could create a meaningful 3D sign that fits into the 1x1x2 sign limitation and voiced concern with business owners trying to protect what they have instead of thinking of the streetscape as a whole. Comment was made questioning if this option would apply to just the downtown area or the entire City. Stromberg suggested staff refine the permitted size and scale of 3D objects to allow for more flexibility. He recommended a cubic dimension with minimums and maximums. Shostrom voiced his support for Option 4 with three exempt signs. Greenblatt noted this option would leave some of the cited merchants out of compliance and questioned if this would really solve the problem. 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Susan, Black Sheep/Noted the issues she has faced with signage and stated she has needed each sign that has been put up. She asked for examples of signage that is permitted and samples of what compliance looks like.

Art Bullock, Ashland Resident/Stated there are two primary public interests that the group has not addressed: 1) the public does not want so much signage that windows look cluttered, and 2) the public does not want so much signage that you cannot see into the business. He stated he does not think the Task Force can make small tweaks and be able to address these public interests and stated a more fundamental rewrite is necessary. 

Garrett, Duex Chats/Asked for examples of approved signage and questioned the placement of signs on multiple entrances.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS (Continued)

Hammond clarified this exempt sign discussion is in relation to the downtown area only. She acknowledged that Option 4 is not much more than a band-aid and agreed that they should recommend to the Council that these issues be looked at in depth. Slattery commented that she did not realize the temporary signage allocation was as flexible as it is. Hammond commented on the possible formation of a group (either through the Chamber of Commerce or the City) that helps merchants deal with their signage.

Stromberg/Kramer m/s to approve Option 4 with 3 exempt signs. DISCUSSION: Stromberg clarified this motion includes the understanding that they will recommend this be further evaluated by the Planning Commission. Laws commented on the point of this group coming together, and stated it was not to change the whole spirit of the sign code. Compton questioned if this option would provide enough relief to the merchants. Ms. Bennett commented on the complexity of the entire issue and commented on who this specific option would address. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously.

Kramer commented that the recommendation to the Planning Commission should be a global recommendation that comes at the end of their work.

Hammond introduced Issue #2 and the related options. Bussell provided some background on Option 3 and stated Ashland is unique in that it considers art to be a sign. She noted any type of representational structure is not allowed and wall graphics are also not permitted. Bussell explained the Public Art Master Plan recommended modifying the sign code to allow for certain types of public art. Ms. Bennett commented on the rules that govern Oregon and stated Ashland is not the first community to experience problems in this area. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified if art is owned (donated) to the City and properly place, it is exempt from the sign code. Ms. Bennett noted this issues still needs to go through the Public Arts Commission.  

Kramer clarified Issue #2 deals with issues like Wiley’s Alfredo statue. Bussell questioned if they are talking about the entire City. She stated this won’t be too much a concern for downtown, since there is not much space, but noted the areas outside downtown are most likely to have national chains. Kramer felt size and material limitations would address these concerns. Staff clarified they do not consider sandwich boards 3D signs. Ms. Bennett clarified Option 4 would not work for Wiley’s Pasta because Alfredo comes in every night. Stromberg suggested they deal with sandwich boards and items like the Alfredo statue separately. Staff clarified the problems with sandwich boards is more of a right of way issue, which will be addressed next week. Kramer suggested creating an additional exempt sign opportunity outside the Downtown Design Overlay Zone that includes allowable material types and size limitations. The group briefly discussed possible objects this suggestion may open the door to.

Bussell recommended they add a public art exemption for city owned facilities/city property. City Attorney Richard Appicello was asked to bring back options at the next meeting to address Bussell’s concerns regarding public art.

Stromberg/Compton m/s to create a category for movable 3D signs, that 1) are not measured as part of the total sign allotment, 2) meet certain material and construction standards (to be determined by staff), 3) fit within a volumetric maximum, and 4) this category would apply to areas outside the Downtown Design Zone and the Historic Districts.

Stromberg/Compton m/s to amend motion to add a setback from the public right-of-way (for staff to determine). DISCUSSION: It was clarified this amendment would be added to the original motion.

Voice Vote on motion as amended: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Kramer, Shostrom and Laws, YES. Shostrom and Bussell, NO. Motion passed 7-2.

Staff clarified the Task Force would be dealing with Issue #4 and the remaining right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week.  

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

April Lucas, Administrative Assistant