Proposals need further evaluation
LIBERTY LAKE – The city has been discussing some amendments to city code for several months in 2023.
Director of Planning, Engineering and Building, Lisa Key brought a presentation to council on Dec. 5. Council voted 7-0 to push the proposed amendments into next year’s sign code rewrite in 2024.
This plan outlined some proposed changes to the city sign code along with several other projects including .
Key told council she was looking for guidance with these amendments, not for council to adopt the proposals at that time.
“We’re going to ask council to deliberate on these so that you can give me direction,” Key said. “You’re not adopting these, but you do need to give me direction so that I can bring back ordinances.”
The sign code amendments were initiated by Greenstone according to Key.
Those amendments were discussed first.
Key did say the planning commission found that all SEPA reviews were done on the amendments and there were no issues with that.
She also said there are substantial criteria that need to be met for code changes to be accepted for approval.
The changes have to be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. Situations where changes in the economic, technological or land use conditions have warranted the proposed modifications.
The proposed amendments can also be approved if it is necessary to correct an error or to clarify the meaning or intent of a proposal.
Amendments that are deemed to be necessary in terms of public interest can meet conditions for approval as well.
Greenstone proposals included having signs under eight square feet as exempt, and to increase the size of commercial and real estate signage in residential zones.
The proposal also included adding temporary land development signs in addition to real estate signs.
They also proposed increasing the height and size of installed blade signs.
Key said these proposals would affect the sign code city wide, not just in the river district although that was Greenstone’s initial goal.
“Greenstone did initiate it,” Key said. “They started out proposing changes to create a sign code just for the river district.”
“After some staff discussions and advice from our legal council they went back to proposing amendments to the city wide code.”
Key said there were some major takeaways from the proposal that city staff found issues with.
According to Key, if they allow any signs under eight square feet to be exempt, it could create issues with multiple signs being placed in “right-of-way” areas.
She said the proposal also creates some confusion because several types of signs are listed as both “exempt” and “permitted.”
Key said the temporary land development signs could present an issue because they are approximately 64 square foot signs, roughly the size of a garage door according to Key.
Those large signs are proposed to be placed, in addition to installed real estate signs.
Key said these proposals also conflict with the city’s comprehensive plan, and mainly in terms that a “proliferation” of signs may pop up without standard regulations.
According to Key, city staff recommended that these amendments be deferred until 2024 as part of the Sign Code Amendment Process, and that the city is requesting funding to have a consultant help overhaul the entire sign code process.
Key said the planning commission found the amendments could not be accepted for several reasons.
Firstly, the amendments would conflict with the comprehensive plan, and would be detrimental to public welfare as they currently read.
She said the changes are not being driven by changes in the economic, technological, or land use conditions.
The proposed changes are also not necessary to change a current error, nor are they deemed necessary by public interest.
Key said those are the main reasons the planning commission doesn’t want these amendments moving forward yet.
After the presentation, Mike Terrell took a moment to speak on behalf of the applicants.
Terrell said they really wanted to get a specific sign code for the river district, but were convinced by city staff it wasn’t necessary because the entire city code could be modified.
Terrell said the main reason they wanted the river district code is to fix some of the ongoing issues they have encountered with signs.
“A number of issues, signage wise have come up,” Terrell said. “We are proposing resolutions for those in the amendments this year.”
He said staff told him it would be challenging for the city to balance and work with two separate sign codes.
“We understand the challenges for staff in that way,” Terrell said. “But we’re trying to emphasize that the river district does have a specific area plan.”
Terrell said there are some major differences between the river district and the rest of the city including landscaping a zoning variances.
The public hearing was opened, and with no input the conversation then went to council vote.
Matthew graduated from West Virginia University-Parkersburg in 2011 with a journalism degree. He's an award-winning photographer and enjoys writing stories about people.
Reader Comments(0)