Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-25 Historic District Board SummaryHISTORIC DISTRICT BOARD June 25, 1996- 7:00 p.m. ~~AGENDA~~ Kenai Council Chambers Chair Dorothy Gray 1. ROLL CALL: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 28, 1996 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. HISTORIC BOARD REVIEW: 6. NEW BUSINESS: a. Parliamentary Procedures 7. OLD BUSINESS' ~ .... ~n P~' ~,~,--n~ b. Review of Sign Code c. Shkituk' Village 8. REPORTS: 9. INFORMATION: a. Bittner Letter dated May 28, 1996 b. National Trust for Historic Preservation Information c. Preservation Advocate News--Vol. 5 d. The Alliance Review 10. BOARD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: HISTORIC DISTRICT BOARD June 25, 1996- 7:00 p.m. ***MINUTES*** UNAPPROVED Meeting called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairperson Gray. 1. ROLL CALL: Members present: Members absent: Others present: Dorothy Gray, Ethel Clausen, Michael Huhndorf, Rebecca Godek, Bill Kluge (arrived at 7'10 p.m.) Alan Boraas, Kim Booth Councilman Joe Moore, Engineering Tech Rachel Clark, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Gray asked for any changes or additions to agenda? Huhndorf asked if that would include the Preservation Plan, Part 2 under Old Business and Gray responded yes. Huhndorf noted he still doesn't have that information. Gray stated they could delete that from the agenda noting the survey had still not been received from Preservation North. Kebschull advised that is correct noting they are three weeks late adding it was supposed to have gone to the printers on Saturday but now they were estimating it would go to the printers on Friday. Gray deleted Preservation Plan from the agenda. No other changes noted, the agenda was approved as modified. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 28, 1996 Gray asked if there were changes to the minutes of May 28th? Huhndorf stated he would like to comment on something he had said concerning the federal attachment to things that have been found. Huhndorf stated that as individuals find things on private property that may be their property as private property is not included in the NAGPHRA(?) law. Huhndorf added that if those items are given to a museum which receives federal funding of any sorts or which has attachments to federal funding, then those items may be taken under NAGPHRA. Huhndorf stated that had been discussed on page 5 of the minutes. Gray stated that must have been Rebecca Godek and was advised it was Bill Godek. Gray commented that perhaps a point should be made to distinguish if Bill said something. Kebschull stated that if it stated Godek it would refer to Rebecca Godek and when Bill spoke the full name was used. Kebschull noted that in the minutes members are referred to by last name only. Huhndorf summarized that artifacts can be attached if they go to a museum which receives federal funding but individual private property owners, they cannot. NO OTHER CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS NOTED, MINUTES APPROVED. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. HISTORIC BOARD REVIEW: 6. NEW BUSINESS: a. Parliamentary Procedures Chairperson Gray advised that the packet contained a memorandum from Kebschull asking for the Board's cooperation in using tighter rules on parliamentary procedure at meetings. Gray noted it has been very difficult to transcribe the minutes when people just jump in and there is not a motion on the floor and the Board keeps jumping around from one subject to another. Gray noted that to refresh her memory of parliamentary procedure she had gotten the video tape, noting it was a 2 hour video, and had reviewed it. Gray stated the tape would be passed on to Huhndorf to review so the board tries to follow procedure when meetings are conducted. Gray added this was also for the benefit of an audience when people come to meetings. Gray noted that the rules are made for the purpose of helping to clarify the meeting for everyone. Moore commented that he appreciated Kebschull's advice. Moore added that it may be tough at first but the board will appreciate it in the end commenting that the meetings will move faster, the board will accomplish more, comments will be focused on the subject at hand and won't stray. Note: Bill Kluge arrived at 7:10 p.m. Gray noted that the packet contained information from the city code special rules that apply. Gray noted it is her understanding that meetings are conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order. Gray commented that she felt that most of the city's code followed the rules contained in the pamphlet that came with the video. Kebschull stated the rules were basic adding that they included the chair recognizing those who speak, and following the agenda. Kebschull noted that the one rule that hasn't been following that she wanted to stress was that the board needs to either ask for a unanimous consent with motions or have a roll call vote. This allows council as well as the public to see who voted. Clark noted that on Page 1.8 was the fact that no member shall speak more than twice or more than 10 minutes. Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 2 June 25, 1996 Gray commented that she remembers seeing something in the video about that and that there can be a motion to increase that should be body feel that more discussion is needed but generally according to Robert's Rules of Order people can only speak to an issue twice. Gray added that this was to help streamline meetings and to keep people on the topic. Gray asked if there was anything else that needed to be pointed out to the board and asked if members should identify themselves when they speak. Kebschull stated that generally the chair identifies individuals when they are recognized and that gives them the floor. Kebschull added that this recognizes that individual on the tape adding that she knows the voices but other individuals who may listen to the tape may not. Kebschull informed the group that citizens may purchase copies of recordings. Chairperson Gray informed Kluge, who had arrived late, where the Board was on the agenda. Gray noted that Kebschull had asked the Board to tighten up the meetings to make it easier to transcribe minutes and that it will better organize and streamline meetings. Gray added that the group had been discussing some of the things the Board was hoping to work on and do better. Gray stated that included only speaking to the issues that are on the floor and to prevent the discussion from jumping around from issue to issue. Gray stated that tonight if a member would like to speak, to raise their hand or pencil and she will call on them. Gray noted that it had been pointed out that according to special city rules regarding meetings that at the regular meetings a council or board member Can only speak twice to an issue or no more than ten minutes to any one question on the floor. Gray asked if anyone had any' specific questions. Gray reiterated she will be passing the tape on to Huhndorf with the handbook that came with it. Gray added that if she is absent, Huhndorf is vice-chair and will chair meetings in her absence. 7. OLD BUSINESS- a. Review of Sign Code Gray stated that in the packet on page 7b is the memorandum from the city attorney with information about things that could actually be done in a sign code. Gray added that Clark had researched the city sign code and had provided information which is in the packet. Gray asked Clark to explain the information she had prepared. Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 3 June 25, 1996 Clark stated the basis for the city attorney's memo are on the back side of number one through seven. Clark stated you cannot regulate for content on a sign. For example saying that you wanted to review them for historic correctness, scale, and character in keeping with historic correctness in keeping with the historic district. Clark stated the attorney didn't think that would be legally defensible adding that the board cannot put anything into the sign code that could be construed as regulating for content. Clark noted they could use objective criteria for type of sign using the example of no free standing signs or roof signs. Clark stated they could also regulate the size. Clark noted that she had came up with a sample sign code noted on the bottom on his memo. Clark stated another issue is that the building inspector already reviews signs in the city and you cannot review for content. Clark commented that since signs cannot be reviewed for content, the board may want to let the inspector review these signs as he does throughout the city. Clark stated that on the back of her memo there are questions that the Board should at least consider. Clark noted the first deals with square footage for various signs. Clark stated that right now the code in other districts says for example for a home occupation sign, one sign not exceeding four square feet. For a multi-family dwelling or an office, not to exceed 32 square feet. For commercial, industrial use, not to exceed 81 square feet. Clark noted she had added or 10 percent of the building projection. Clark stated she had used 10 percent as an example. Clark stated the second sheet was to give a visual example of size of these signs. Huhndorf asked regarding the drawing if they were to see the sign as what is allowed for that particular application for example, 10 percent on professional offices. Huhndorf asked if that was about what it would look like on the schematic. Clark stated that 32 square feet would be what would be allowed for a professional office. Clark added that for a relatively small building projection that is what it would look like. Huhndorf, noting this would be his second comment on this issue, regarding sign content and not being allowed to check for historic correctness that he felt that if something was historically incorrect and you can prove it, under the right of free speech they have a right to state that. Huhndorf commented he felt incorrect should be in quotations, in other words if the dates were wrong. Huhndorf added that one of the factors that was important to himself and the people he works with is the correctness of the signage. Huhndorf stated perhaps they would be the ones determining that if they would be the ones doing it so it wouldn't be as crucial. Huhndorf noted that if they see something that is not right, they cannot do anything about it. Clark stated not necessarily adding that commercial speech, which a sign would be considered, is only protected if it is not misleading. Clark stated they could make an argument that something that was incorrect as far as dates would be construed as misleading and under those grounds you could look at the content. Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 4 June 25, 1996 Gray stated that when she read that she was trying to remember and scanned through some of the sample sign codes that they had had from other Places. Gray stated that interestingly enough they had taken that from another ordinance somewhere else in the United States. Gray added that if the attorney feels that that might be challenged, could the sign code say it would be a recommendation that the content be reviewed by this board to assist in historical correctness. It wouldn't say by law that they had to, but again one of the purposes of the Board is to provide education for the community about the historical district. Gray added that if they came to the Board as a resource, could they put some kind of wording in the code with that in mind. Clark stated they could put in the code that it is recommended that it be reviewed by the TSH Board prior to putting it up but it could not be required. Gray stated that may be a way to help people. Clark stated she would ask the city attorney but didn't feel there would be a problem with that. Moore stated that he had found it interesting in the first couple meetings that he had attended that the Board wanted signs that did nothing more than to advertise what the place was such as hotel, motel, etc. Moore added that it appears they cannot do that adding that is disappointing. Moore stated he felt that was a valid argument and is disappointed to see that this attorney's opinion. Clark stated she felt he was pretty solid on stating that as long as it is not profane, misleading, or unlawful they can put anything on a sign. Gray asked if the Board would like to go through each of the items that Clark had suggested and see if the Board agrees or disagrees with them and make suggestions or changes. Gray stated the first is the home occupation sign not exceeding four square feet. Gray noted that is the first sketch. Gray noted that later Clark had added that free standing signs are not permitted. Gray asked if that was on or off premises. Clark noted that off premise commercial signs are automatically not allowed by the general code. Clark stated a free standing sign would be something that is out from the building commenting that most of the signs in the area are free standing. Clark noted that is a question the Board needs to answer, whether or not to allow free standing signs. Clark added that the Board needs to know there are already signs in place that are free standing commenting that it would be a disparity if they didn't allow them. Clark stated she had put number four in as a suggestion. Gray stated that in Soldotna home occupation signs must be attached to the home. Clark stated the Board could do that if they wanted to. Gray stated to specifically deal with home occupations. Clark stated the only problem she sees is that if somebody has a fairly large set back, it may not be fair as far as visibility. Gray commented that four square feet is not very big adding that even if it was free standing it probably wouldn't be a problem. Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 5 June 25, 1996 Kebschull pointed out to the Board that the sign grant that they had applied for that part of those signs may have to be free standing as the Board doesn't know if they have property owners' permission to place signs on the buildings. Kebschull commented that whatever codes made would be like any other codes within the city wherein a person could apply for a variance. Kebschull explained that even if the Board wanted to make a rule that free standing signs were not allowed, people could still apply for a variance and get permission to do that on an individual basis. Gray asked if the group agreed that home occupation signs would be no more than four square feet. Group consensus. Gray asked about signs with multi-family dwellings, clubs, professional offices would not exceed 32 square feet which is the second sketch. Gray added this is approximately 10 percent of the building projection. Gray asked if the group agreed with this. Kluge stated he didn't see the 10 percent noted. Gray stated it was noted on the drawing. Kluge stated they may want to add that in the verbiage. Kluge stated that it appeared to him to accomplish what their goal was which was to keep Signage secondary to the character of the buildings in Old Town that he would propose making that the maximum size for all business rather than going up to the 81 square feet. Clark stated they could do that if they wanted to. Clark asked if they wanted the professional office code to read 32 square feet in area or 10 percent of the building projection area whichever is less. Kluge stated that is a four by eight sheet of plywood adding that is a pretty good size sign when you have a small development like Old Town. Gray commented that it would be about the size of the green chalkboard. Kluge stated it would be bigger than that. Clark and Moore commented they felt that it would be close to that size. Kluge stated it would actually be a little larger estimating that the chalkboard was seven feet long and shy of four feet wide. Kluge added that it might only be six feet. Gray asked Kluge if she understood him to say he would delete number three on this list and keep all the signs including commercial, industrial along with the signs identified in number two as having a maximum of 32 square feet or the 10 percent of the building projection? Kluge stated that he felt that one way of dealing with it would be that all other signs shall be limited to 32 square feet or 10 percent of the building projection whichever is less. Gray asked for the feelings of the other board members? Huhndorf stated that on one hand he feels it is okay and the other one not okay depending on the application. Huhndorf stated that he felt sometimes an exception should be made if there is a good cause for it. Huhndorf stated he didn't know that they wrote laws like that. Clark stated that a person could apply for a variance and if it was for a good cause, hopefully it would be approved. Huhndorf stated he likes the clause Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 6 June 25, 1996 but without seeing every application, he would like to allow a window with some conditions to the exception. Kebschull commented that the Board may want to specify that variances in Old Town be reviewed by the Board before they go to Planning and Zoning noting that the under the current procedure variances would not be reviewed by the TSH Board. Moore commented that as far as he knows, everything goes through Planning and Zoning. Kebschull stated that was right but it doesn't go through this Board adding that she didn't know if the Board would even see a sign that was oversized. Gray stated that in the ordinance that commercial buildings are limited to no more that 5000 square feet per story asking what that would make roughly one side of a building. Gray asked if it could possibly have an 81 square foot sign. Kluge stated it would depend on the property and how the building is proportioned. Clark stated it would be much, much larger than the pictures she had supplied. Kluge commented that would depend on which side of the building and depending on the property that could be two different sides. Kluge added that is why you have the limitation on square footage. Kluge stated that if they look at plats of Old Town, there are not many large pieces of property and there are limits to the size of buildings that can be placed on those pieces of property. Kluge added that if you try to add something in there except by approval of a variance he stated he felt that opens up a window. Kebschull noted that they didn't have to note a variance could be applied for that the code allows for anyone to apply for variances. Kebschull reiterated that regardless of the sign code they implement a person can still apply for a variance to get a larger sign or whatever. Moore stated that the way the system works is that any ordinance that this Board recommends will still go through Planning and Zoning. Moore asked if that was correct and Gray advised yes. Godek noting she hadn't had a chance to look but asked how close Clark's proposal is to the current sign code. Godek stated that 81 square feet was the maximum sign adding that it seemed to her there was no reason to have another sign code if the current sign code already takes care of that. Godek stated that if they want to limit that and not do a 81 square feet and do as Kluge suggested a 32 square feet sign, then she sees the reason for doing this. Kluge stated he felt that something else that was missing was a briefing that explains what the Board would like to see. Kluge added he thinks it goes back to the statement that the sign and contents with the street scape and trying to limit the verbiage on the sign to what the character of the building is and the occupancy is in that building. Kluge stated this is because they are trying to achieve an atmosphere in the Old Town district that is appropriate for a historical area. Kluge stated if you give some background on what the Board is trying to accomplish in the area rather than just state is you do this, this, and this you can pass our sign ordinance. This portion of the sign code should be informative as well' as just as much as restrictive noting that he felt that a narrative should be included. Gray Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 7 June 25, 1996 stated they might borrow from the rationale that they wrote to the Planning & Zoning when they introduced this and justified the whys and wherefores of what the Board was wanting to accomplish. Gray added that she felt it was important that people see the sign code for Old Town not as being as restrictive but perhaps being more informative. Huhndorf commented that on that note and after hearing the talk about Old Town and the number of buildings and the size of the lots, he stated he does like Kluge's statement. Huhndorf noted that they only make recommendations anyway and depending on the credibility the board is assigned, they either will or won't listen to recommendations in the spirit of historic flavor. Clark commented that the place for the verbiage may not be the ordinance but instead it may be supplemental information. Clark noted that the sign code reads pretty cut and dry as to what is allowed and what is not. Gray stated that a more appropriate place may be as a cover letter for people who come in looking for the regulations Kebschull noted she had brought the zoning code to the meeting adding that if the Board does a specific sign code for the Historic District and start the code with the intent of the code is to, etc. Kebschull gave for example the code starts the section on the Historic District with the intent of the district. Kebschull stated they would need to be concise, clear, and to the point. Clark stated the sign code doesn't have that information included and Kebschull stated it didn't but didn't know that they couldn't include the intent. Moore commented he didn't see any reason that they couldn't include the intent. Kebschull noted they would not be able to have a long, lengthy document like they had submitted previously. Clark reiterated that they could not regulate content in any way, shape, or form. Gray stated that in the intent section it might be made clear that the Board is here for the purpose of assisting people in being historically accurate and would be more than willing to provide as much information as the Board has. Clark · stated she felt it could be put in there that it is recommended that the sign be reviewed by the Board prior to implementation. Clark stated she would ask the attorney. Gray asked that they return to the size of the sign noting they had discussed number 2 and 3. Gray asked what the feelings were noting that Kluge has already said he would like size limited to 32 square feet maximum. Gray asked for other comments. Kluge stated that for point of order he thought the correct way to do this is that someone should make a motion to adopt it and then make amendments to that motion such as this change. Kluge stated that way you get it on the floor for discussion. Kluge asked if that was correct? Kebschull advised that because they have been discussing the item and no one has made a motion, the Board could Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 8 June 25, 1996 either make a motion. Kluge interrupted saying that was what he meant and that usually to get an item on the floor for discussion that usually a motion is made. Kluge continued saying that then amendments can be made to the motion if they are accepted. Moore stated that was not necessarily the case and that anything could be discussed without a motion. Moore stated if they want to make a motion to change the recommendations, then that would be what they could do. Kluge asked 'if others saw the confusion here. Moore stated they have no ability to act on anything, no ability to do anything but make recommendations. Moore asked if that was correct and Gray stated yes. Moore stated if they would move to recommend this sample code, then that would be a motion. Moore stated they could discuss the sample code, make changes to it, and then move to recommend the sample code as altered or modified which would require a second and then they would vote. Moore stated he felt they were doing the right thing the way the Board was going. Kebschull commented that she thought what Kluge was referring to that generally for example in Planning & Zoning if there is a plat to be approved, the first thing that happens is somebody moves for approval, someone seconds it, and then a discussion is held and then they vote. Kebschull added that when you have an item like this wherein you don't know what the business is because it is so widespread and open, you don't really have a motion to make. Moore stated the end result of the discussion would be a motion to recommend to Planning & Zoning what you discussed and changed. Gray recommended flushing the item out, then have changes read, and then have a motion to accept or reject it as written. Gray noted that then they would be official. Gray asked how the Board was feeling about the 81 versus the 32 square feet. Huhndorf stated he would go with the 32 square feet or 10 percent. Clausen stated she would go with the 32. Godek stated she liked that adding she felt the smaller the sign the less obtrusive and in keeping with what she feels the goal is. Gray stated she would also agree adding that most of the buildings there are quite small and anything gigantic would take away from the historical integrity of the area. Clark asked if they wanted to make a contingency for if there was more than one business as noted under part 3. Clark stated that for example the Vozar property and if you limit the entire premises to 32 square feet, you are talking about 2 square feet signs. Kebschull asked if Clark was referring to Vozar's business or the cabins adding that each of those cabins would be a separate business and allowed a separate sign. Clark stated not on the same premises and Moore commented they are on the same lot. Clark stated she had discussed it with La Shot and thought it referred to the same premises. Kebschull noted item number 3 said per business. Clark stated if there is more than one business on a premise all these Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 9 June 25, 1996 apply. Kebschull stated she thought of a premise as something combined like Carrs where it is one building but when you have separate individual building would be considered a premise. Kebschull noted that was her perception. Clark stated La Shot had stated his understanding was the lot line and whatever is interior to the lot line is one place adding you can see how that might not be fair. Kluge stated you might say one would be allowed for each free standing building on the premise not to exceed 32 square foot or 10 percent of the front elevation of the building. Kluge added then that one needs to define front which should be defined probably by the side where the main entry is located. Kluge continued that such a development like the little cabins which are all introverted on the piece of property. Gray stated they were all in a circle. Kluge stated that they needed to define what side if the front. Moore asked if the existing sign code defined the front of a buSiness adding that was a good point. Gray stated she didn't see anything in the code about it adding it defined wall sign as any sign attached to, painted on, or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of the said wall. Gray stated that doesn't say that the wall has to be on the main entrance of the building. Gray added she felt that was an important thing to look up. Gray asked Kebschull if Kluge should repeat what he said about defining front. Kluge said he mentioned to allow one side having one sign for each free standing structure on the premise not to exceed 32 square feet or a maximum of 10 percent of the front elevation. Kluge stated that somewhere you need to define the front side as the side with the main entry to the building. Gray stated that brings them to number 4 about free standing signs. Gray stated she would like to bring up the point that if the sign grant goes through the Board had actually thought about putting signs on property that no longer even had the structure but were an historical spot such as this is the site of the old Russian school house. Gray stated that if they were to do; Clark interjected they would have to apply for a variance. Kluge stated it could be incorporated into the ordinance with the exception of historical information signs not to exceed 2 square feet. Huhndorf asked if they could put some type of a monument or something not necessarily a sign but something that stated on this spot. Huhndorf commented like the brass plaques that are on the Alaska Highway. Clark stated she felt a statue would be considered a structure but was not certain about a plaque. Clark asked if there was a definition for sign. Gray read, "Sign means any words, letters, parts of letters, phrases, sentences, emblems, devices, trade names, trademarks by which anything is made known. Such as are used to designate an individual a firm, association, a corporation, a profession business, commodity, or project which are visible from any public street or highway and used to attract attention. Clark stated she could ask the city attorney for a ruling as to whether a plaque or historical signs like the Board is considering if those would be considered a sign that is Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 10 June 25, 1996 regulated. Huhndorf stated that one thing about Old Town is that so many of the buildings are already missing and so much has been taken down. That may be an avenue that can be utilized. Kluge stated that maybe the definition of sign needs to be clarified and in the definition mention the exception of historical signs in the Old Town district. Gray commented that Kluge was suggesting that the main sign code be amended. Kluge stated that would be one way to approach it if this is going to be incorporated as the revised sign ordinance. Gray stated that certainly would be a good recommendation adding she understands Planning and Zoning is going to be working on revising the sign code. Moore stated that Planning and Zoning despises the sign code adding that he didn't know if they were planning on revising it. Kebschull noted that when they are faced with dealing with the sign code that they always mention that it needs to be looked at; however, no one has actually asked that it be put on an agenda. Gray stated it could be a recommendation from their Board to have in the definition of the Kenai sign code amended to include historical signs. Gray noted that would give them coverage. Godek drawing attention to her copy of the sign code, noted it says that you do not have to have a permit for historical signs. Godek read, "signs in the nature of cornerstones, commemorative plaques, historical signs, building name and street number." Godek asked if that was addressing what they were discussing? Gray stated it was and that would definitely have to be changed. Gray stated that was number 1 1 under "Signs Not Requiring a Permit" is the one that Godek is referring to. Gray stated that maybe they don't need to have a permit but in the sign definition they should be included. Kluge stated that if you read it again it sounds like that is not even part of the ordinance adding there is no regulation in the current ordinance dealing with historic signs noting you are allowed to have those without a permit. Kluge stated that in other words you could go put a plaque on any piece of property or monument on any piece of property without approval by the city. Kluge asked that Gray read it again and she did. Moore stated it sounds like in their recommendation at the beginning of the ordinance that anything in the Historic District, added that it would preclude historical accuracy because they wouldn't be required to have the permit to put it there. Anybody could put up what they wanted. Moore added they still could but it wouldn't fall under the recommendation that it come before this Board to review it because a permit is not required. Moore stated that perhaps they need something in the proposed ordinance that, stopped and commented that they were back to the free speech thing. Kluge stated it sounds to him like if you went along the road in Old Town and you saw a historic plaque someone put in front of their place of business and it was inaccurate that the only way you could do anything about it is Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 11 June 25, 1996 to go get an attorney and sue them because law. it is misleading and that is against the Moore stated he would hope that as visible as the Board might be in promoting their historic district that hopefully people would cooperate. Moore added he doesn't foresee everybody just throwing up a plaque or a sign stating this, this, and this. Moore stated he thinks their pressure or influence as a commission would weigh a lot in somebody's decision to put up a plaque that wasn't accurate historically. Moore asked if there were divisive groups here or one group that thinks things happen this way and one group who thinks things happen this way. Moore stated it is not uncommon in the world but is that the case in the Townsite Historic district? Gray stated not to her knowledge. Huhndorf stated there may be some conflict in some of the homes and some of the ways because of the nature of American Indian history. Huhndorf noted if it is looked at from being from the receivership point of view, there may be some concept of conflict. Huhndorf stated he believes that as long as things are afforded a neutral kind of information like the origin of the house or whatever any interpretation that is done from that that he didn't think there was any conflict. Moore stated that he hated to say that maybe they were worrying a little too much about the whole thing but it can come back to bite them later. Moore stated that seeing as though Planning and Zoning is the ultimate sayer in this anyway, Moore stated he would like to see this Board work with them. Moore stated they could be of assistance and asked how receptive they had been to their comments on the code. Moore asked if any member of this Board had talked to a member of Planning and Zoning? Gray asked if he meant about the sign code and stated no. Gray stated they are still so vague about it. Moore stated that he would think that along with this recommendation would be a discussion to somebody who would lend an ear to what you are trying to accomplish and that it would be valuable. Gray asked if he was suggesting that they send a draft of this even before it has been made into a motion to them to review. Moore stated he didn't think so and if the Board felt comfortable with what they were putting together tonight, he would see no problem with recommending this as a proposed ordinance to them. Moore added it will oniy create a discussion as it has to have introduction and a public hearing. Moore asked if they were in a hurry to get in to Planning and Zoning noting that they had been a couple months ago. Gray stated they had discovered that it would not be effective for this building season to push it through in a hurry so they should take their time and thoroughly review the code. Kluge stated it appears to him that this has evolved and that he felt they were heading in the right direction. Kluge stated he felt they should go on through the list as they started and that they should go back to their original submittal for the verbiage about historic correctness, scale, street scapes. Kluge stated that is what Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 1 2 June 25, 1996 the intent is with the historic sign code and add a narrative to the front of the list. Kluge stated they had already brought up the point that plaques were allowed adding they are trying to let the public know that they are trying to have the signage in Old Town be a good scale and correct when it comes to historic information and to help keep a quaint character to our Old Town. Kluge stated the only meat to it is the size as he sees it. Kluge stated that is all he sees is that they don't want a lot of big, gaudy signs in Old Town. Kluge noted that by limiting the size if you are going to have the name of your business on the sign will limit the content as you will only have so much room to put your information on it. Huhndorf stated he was looking at the Historic Preservation Plan noting that he was supposed to do the procedure for nomination to future historic sites and also historic preservation for the community. Huhndorf stated as far as talking about recommendation, the Board could, then added there is the law you have to abide by and the things you don't have to abide by and then there is creating historic flavor and maybe trying to create goodwill. They could come up with something that is very nice and appealing to both the Historic Board and to the person and have that sort of dialogue, "Do you like this kind of sign, or what do you think of this?" Huhndorf stated perhaps put a little more hands on. Gray added guided. Kebschull suggested, noting after listening to their discussion and the fact that she spends time with P&Z, that it would be much easier to do what they are trying to do in a work session adding that is basically what they are doing here. Kebschull noted they had broken down from the two times and the ten minutes to where the Board is going on and on and on. Kebschull stated she thought the first thing P&Z will ask is have you had a work session and have you advertised it to the public. Kebschull noted that the people in the Historic District are probably some of the most verbal in the town for property owners and they should have had input into codes that the city may implement that will effect them. Kebschull noted that Planning and Zoning, if it ever gets to that point, they have to have a public hearing and council also has to have a public hearing also. Kebschull stated that to start off, she would recommend a work session with a public notice that the public is invited to participate in designing a new sign code for the district and then have set ideas when you go into that to share with those people. Moore asked if this was a public hearing and if this meeting had been advertised. Kebschull advised no and noted that these meetings are only advertised on the bulletin board at city hall. Moore commented that they don't meet the public hearing criteria adding that they don't have to. Kebschull added that she is just commenting on what she feels Planning and Zoning will ask if the public has had the opportunity to participate. Moore stated that in other words they want this Board to take care of it before they deal with it. Gray asked if they wanted them to do a public hearing before they do. Kebschull clarified that she wasn't saying a Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 1 3 June 25, 1996 "public hearing" but had said a work session wherein the public is invited to participate noting there is a difference. Kebschull gave the example of how P&Z had done the work session for the prime residential zone that they had been working on for the last three months. Kebschull stated they had a work session before a regular meeting which was advertised and people were encouraged to participate. Clark suggested that she could take this back and work on it with the changes that the Board has made already and then have a work session from there. Kluge stated they have addressed this issue for the last four meetings added that he thinks this gets back to what he was trying to get to and what Kebschull had mentioned that being the work session. Kluge stated he felt that was why he was a little confused because on other boards he has served on that usually there is an agenda and there are items that are up for consideration for motions on the agenda and may be discussed once the motion has been made for the items that are on the agenda. Kluge stated that before it gets to that, the discussions that they keep trying to have in the meetings, have already occurred and there is a draft on the agenda for action. Any revisions to that action take place by motion. Kluge stated he thinks the Board is doing a lot of work session items and perhaps even committee work at the meetings. Kluge stated he felt they had gone through that step noting they had talked a lot about the sign issue, thinks they are on the right track, and added that Clark had been a lot of help. Kluge stated he felt they were right there at having something that has some meat to it and does a little bit of what they are trying to accomplish adding that it can always be modified in the future. Kluge stated he felt the whole intent was that they were trying to have a character for the signage in Old Town that is in place with a quaint historic part of the town. Kluge stated if they identify that as the intent and try to limit the size of the sign which would hopefully accomplish the real concern is which is that they don't want a lot of gaudy, large, bright, signs. Kluge reiterated that he thinks limiting the size goes a long ways and providing the intent of what they are trying to do in Old Town will encourage people to be more tasteful. Kluge stated he felt that was good first step as far as any developments in Old Town. Kluge added that it was something that he felt could be accomplished at this meeting if they continue through the list and go back to the original concept stating that they are interested in historic correctness and the scale of the signage and trying to limit the signs to just what is occupying the structure. Kluge stated he felt those were the things they were really trying to accomplish by the sign issue and that they should go forward. Huhndorf asked if that could be summarized by saying to make a list of recommendations and go on. Kluge stated they have a list before them and they had gotten almost through it and the only thing they are missing is the narrative to Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 14 June 25, 1996 lead into the signage for size restrictions and the other item before the group is the issue of free standing signs or portable changing letters. Kluge stated he believed those are already in the sign ordinance. Clark stated that was true for particular areas, residential areas. Kluge stated they would need to incorporate those items within the Historic District. Kluge stated they have gone through the rationale of the sign ordinance. Gray stated that she assumed that was what they were doing, that they were going to flush this out and make a motion to recommend it to Planning and Zoning. Kluge stated then P&Z could take it and tell the Board what they think. Gray stated that she would further suggest that if P&Z wants the Board to have the public hearing, the Board could do that. Gray stated she is not sure of the procedure. Gray stated she would think that they have done the groundwork and that they would take it from there. Moore stated he would agree with that adding he respect's Kebschull's input as she has been there a while and that she is probably right that P&Z may kick it back. Moore stated if they do, they can deal with it then. Kluge stated that if there is an ordinance that they are proposing to P&Z that tries to change an ordinance or come up with a new ordinance, is there not a public hearing required? Gray answered yes. Kluge clarified that when it is incorporated that there will be a public hearing. Gray added that at that time they could speak or an elected person could represent the Board at that hearing. Gray advised they should go on with number 4, free standing signs. Godek stated she has one question and that is if Kebschull recommends that they should bring this to the public, and if that is something that we are pretty sure that P&Z will ask if it has been done, Godek says she understand that they can do what they are doing. But, why don't they go ahead and plan that so that they don't have to be told by P&Z to do that and go another month to do that. Moore stated they cannot have a work session without council's permission. Moore asked if it would need to go to P&Z and then council or could this body ask for a work session? Kebschull stated this body could make a motion and ask council. Kebschull noted that the only reason she had made the recommendation was because it appeared to her that the Board was going around in circles like has happened for the last four meetings. Clark inputted that the Board is not following the rules of order. Kebschull stated if the item needs to be dealt with in a work session format, then the group should adjourn to a work session and use a work session format instead of try to cover a meeting that is not following Robert's Rules of Order. Kebschull stated that as far as public comment, the Board could wait if they feel they have already gone past that point and have the changes that they want to make. Kebschull added that may be poor hindsight on her part and that Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 1 5 June 25, 1996 she should have possibly recommended it earlier adding that when you start thinking about vocal people in Old Town you realize that they should be allowed input. Kebschull added another comment that will come up if you recommend that signs in the Historic District are reviewed by you before they are issued that may cause some problems. Kebschull noted that in general people come into for a sign permit the day they are ready to put them up and this Board meets once a month. Kebschull stated for example you meet today and somebody comes in tomorrow for a sign permit in the Historic District, does that mean they have to wait 30 days before it is reviewed. Gray stated that as much as she feels there needs to be rules and regulations she has always felt that this Board has been very spontaneous in it's determination to do a good job. Gray stated that is why as the chairperson she has had difficulty limiting people to their two times or whatever because she feels that people keep generating new ideas. Gray stated for example Godek brought up the idea about what is presently in the sign code. Gray stated that the Board needs to be aware of all the things this is involved in adding that as the chairperson she wants to do it the right way and follow the proper channels. Gray stated she didn't really know the procedure but added she would suggest they do this. Go through the seven items and at the end of that discussion the Board will decide by a motion what will be done with the list, if it will go to the City Council or send it on as a recommendation to Planning and Zoning but let's go through the list. Gray asked if anyone had any objection to number 4, free standing signs adding there are a number of free standing signs. Gray stated there are two free standing signs at the Church which would be grandfathered in. Gray stated she personally doesn't have a problem with free standing signs adding that if there is a sign size requirement. Gray stated she does have a problem with five, six, and seven but a free standing sign that fits the criteria is not a problem. Kluge stated he agrees with that. Gray asked if they should just delete number four, group consensus. Gray asked about number 6, portable, changeable, electric or non-electric signs would not be permitted. Kluge stated he would like to delete that sentence. Gray stated it could be written like the present sign code saying these are permitted, these are specifically not permitted. Gray noted that the present sign code is written that way. Clark noted she had just followed the residential sign code down the line and changed it. Kluge stated that on item four they just need to scratch free standing signs are not permitted. Clark stated if it doesn't say it is not permitted, it is permitted. Kluge stated he is confused asking if they are going to have a category saying signs that are not permitted adding that if they do that that under the signs that are permitted they should leave free standing signs. Clark stated there isn't a category "are permitted," everything is permitted that is not identified as not permitted. Kluge asked if they could have balloons? Kluge stated Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 16 June 25, 1996 he was just trying to make a point and that he felt they should mention that free standing signs are permitted. Clark stated then you would have to go through free standing, wall, political, real estate. Kluge stated they can't limit political but they could say wall. Gray stated that as you had pointed out, size is the major issue. Clark reiterated that the code doesn't have to identify that free standing signs are permitted because all of the signs listed in the front of the ordinance are permitted unless specifically not permitted adding that any sign not listed is prohibited. Clark added that they list all of them, free standing, political, etc. Clark stated if you want to take them out of that list, they must be identified. Kluge stated that in other words the front list these are all listed and we are saying they are not permitted. Clark stated they will be taking out signs that they don't want in the original list adding she doesn't believe balloons are allowed. Gray stated that group signs would not be permitted nor would lighted signs be permitted. Kluge stated a lighted sign to him is confusing because you could have a sign that has a flood lamp on it or you could have back lit sign with flashing lights. Kluge asked what differentiates between a neon sign and a just a painted sign that you would like people to see when it is dark outside? Kluge stated he would like to see excluded are neon signs, the flashing lights, the back lit signs, but if you have a painted sign and it is dark in the winter, it would be nice to allow them to have a light on it. Huhndorf asked if he was talking about lighted signs and something was illuminated that is lighted by a beacon that shines on them to give them emphasis. Clark noting she didn't have a copy of the code with her asked if it defined lighted signs? Kebschull stated that in the beginning of the code it goes through all of these things and they are either allowed or not allowed under the general sign code. For example, flashing signs of intermittent illumination are not permitted except time and temperature, automatic changing message signs, and traditional holiday decorations. Kebschull noted that a lot of these items are already there so they would be repeating them. The only things that the Board would want to change is if you wanted to change the original list. Godek stated it says that any illumination shall be by indirect means and a light shining on a sign is an indirect light. Gray asked which number that was and Godek stated it was on page 14-44 before e. Gray read the item. Godek stated it goes on and read definition for g. Kebschull advised that Godek was reading from the residential zone which started on page 14-43. Kebschull stated she didn't feel the Board had a clear picture of the sign code as it stands in the fact that you are trying to make a code like the residential code or commercial code and just add to the existing sign code adding that she thought that was where they were getting confused. Gray stated she would like to leave lighted signs are not permitted in there especially if this will go to a work session or further discussion and flush it out at Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 17 June 25, 1996 that time. Gray stated she felt the primary goal was not to have flashing neon signs there but an indirect illumination that was subtle would certainly be okay. Kebschull clarified if they meant to take that out and Gray stated yes. Gray stated that covered the recommendations made by Clark. Gray stated she felt they should entertain a motion to decide what to do and combine it with a preface stating the intent of the sign regulations. Kluge asked if Gray had that information. Gray asked if someone would like to make a motion of what to do with the list of recommendations. Kluge stated he would like to make a motion but stated he would like to add one thing. That being, instead of saying lighted signs just say electric signs and that way you are not saying you cannot light the sign, we just don't want electric signs. Kluge stated that they could pull the original verbiage and pick out a few key sentences to incorporate it into the motion and that way it is all covered by one motion. Gray stated he could so move. KLUGE MOVED THAT THE BOARD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO ADOPT THESE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS INTO THE CITY OF KENAI'S SIGN ORDINANCES FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. Kluge stated he would like to get a few key sentences to preface these six items. Gray stated there is a motion on the floor to propose these items identified be recommended to Planning & Zoning for adoption into the Kenai City sign code. MOTION SECONDED BY HUHNDORF. Gray asked for discussion. Kluge asked for a copy of the narrative. Gray read, "The purpose of the Historic District sign standards are to enhance, protect, and preserve the distinctive historical character of the historic district. The Townsite Historic Board .... signs for use in the Historic Townsite District shall be subject to a design review by the Historic District Board." Kluge asked if they could delete that and offered to write some of this down noting the first sentence would be a good opening. Kluge stated they need to skip the part about the review since they couldn't do that. Kluge asked if the part about scale, character, etc. was part of that. Gray stated it is further down noting that they were going to ask for a recommended review not required. Kluge stated no review should be mentioned. Gray stated it said, "signs shall express the special character of the building or business." Kluge asked if it should say it is our intent and desire, not saying that they have to do anything just saying it is our intent. Discussion between Kluge and Gray about what the statement should say. Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 18 June 25, 1996 Gray asked if anyone wanted to speak to the motion on the floor noting the motion was to take these items to Planning and Zoning as opposed to having a work session themselves. Gray stated that if that was Kebschull's recommendation that perhaps they were jumping the gun and maybe they should have a work sessiOn with the items they have identified tonight. Gray stated that would give them some time to rewrite the narrative adding that Kluge may want to volunteer to rewrite the narrative. Kluge noted his motion was to adopt these items with a narrative adding he would like to take action tonight. Gray stated that the action needs to address where it will go, to P&Z or a work session. Kluge stated the motion was to P&Z. Kluge noted the intent of his motion was that they have a narrative adding that he could give that in three sentences and then it could be incorporated into the motion. Kluge read, "The purpose of the Historic District sign standards are to enhance, protect, and preserve the distinctive historical character of Kenai's Historic District. Signs should express the special character of one's building or business, have a style and form which relates to the place of business and be of a size that is in scale with one's building and street scape as a whole." Kluge stated they said they "should" do that and it would be up to the owner to define that for himself. Kluge continued, adding that he didn't think they needed to say anything about historic correctness. Kluge commented that he felt those two sentences went a long way to informing the public as to what they are trying to accomplish. KLUGE NOTED HIS MOTION WOULD BE THE SiX ITEMS THEY HAD GONE THROUGH WITH TWO SENTENCES AS PREFACE TO THE ITEMS TO EXPRESS THE BOARD'S INTENT. Gray stated that as the chairperson she wanted to make sure they did the right think noting Kebschull's recommendation that rather than sending this to P&Z that a work session be scheduled. Gray commented she felt that Moore agreed with Kebschull that if it is sent forward at this stage it will be sent back. Moore stated he is saying that he wouldn't be surprised noting they are their own commission but they can do what they want. Gray clarified the motion was to send it to P&Z. Gray stated if that motion fails, a motion could be made to send it to a work session. Gray advised the Board that when they vote on the motion, that those are the two things that they should be thinking about. Clark stated they could amend the motion and take out the part sending it to P&Z and send it to a work session. Moore stated that if the Board does that, they would be asking council to allow them to hold a work session. Moore added that he didn't think there would be an objection to that. Moore stated his feeling was that he would send it to Planning and Zoning. Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 19 June 25, 1996 VOTE: ETHEL CLAUSEN YES REBECCA GODEK YES DOROTHY GRAY YES UNANIMOUS. MICHAEL HUHNDORF BILL KLUGE YES YES b. Shkituk' Village Clark advised there was information in the packet regarding the request to council for funding for the survey. Clark advised that council advised the Board to seek other funding such as CLG funds. Gray asked if that meant that they turned down the matching funds portion of it. Clark stated they had said to look at other funding sources first. Kluge stated that Mayor Williams seemed to agree with the concept to proceed with the survey. Kluge stated they felt the Board should explore funds other than city moneys. Huhndorf stated that puts more responsibility on his part to seek funds from the people at KIT. Huhndorf stated he had spoken with people at KIT and they liked the idea and the idea of bringing in Salamantof and KNA. Huhndorf added he doesn't know how KNA or Salamantof would feel about it but believes he could attend their meetings. Huhndorf stated he believed there are members in those communities who see real value in this. Huhndorf stated he will have that information for the next meeting. Gray asked if anyone could think of other sources of funding. Gray stated she suspects La Shot's letter will get a response relaying the information about cuts in funding. Moore commented that he was very impressed with the church getting $250,000 for restoration. Gray corrected Moore stating it was $200,000. Gray commented that it helped that Senator Stevens is the Chair of the House Resources Sub-committee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands. Gray advised that she would put it on the agenda for the next meeting and Huhndorf could report on possible funding sources. 8. REPORTS: 9. INFORMATION: a. Bittner Letter dated May 28, 1996 Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 20 June 25, 1996 b. National Trust for Historic Preservation Information Gray advised the group that the west coast director of the National Trust will be in Kenai Friday and she will be meeting with him for two hours. Gray stated she will be asking him about possible sources of funds. c. Preservation Advocate News--Vol. 5 d. The Alliance Review 10. BOARD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Councilman Moore thanked Chairperson Gray for her efforts in trying to follow parliamentary procedure tonight. Moore commented about the two times or ten minute limit to speaking stating he had not been aware of that rule until they had received the packet. Kluge commented that he thinks it gets back to committee work or work sessions prior to the regular meetings wherein there are items on the agenda for action. Kluge added that is Why it has been happening because the group has been doing all of the work in the regular meeting. Kluge stated that normally a committee will take something like this and make a recommendation and then the Board would take action on it. Kluge continued saying the Board would have a work session, develop something, and then put in on the agenda for the meeting. Kluge stated he thought the meetings could be cut down if they did that. Gray advised they are learning. Gray stated they would have their next meeting July 23, 1996, at 7 p.m. 1 1. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8'40 p.m. Res , d' . Administrative Assistant Townsite Historic District Board Minutes Page 21 June 25, 1996